Retirement Party

Windfall for Washington

Question:

WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK July 15, 2005; Page A10 Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it’s still bad news. At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week’s report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed. John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn’t coming from wage income, but rather from investment income — that is, the so-called "non-withholding" income tax collections which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments. Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on … dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he’ll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent. This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut. By the way, we don’t recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it’s a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn’t be related to who’s sitting in the White House, could it? There is a looming budget problem, but it has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts or insufficient tax revenue. It is a government spending crisis, especially the liabilities that politicians have promised to retirees in Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a share of our national output based solely on current promises will surge from about 20% today, to 25% in 2025 and to 34% by 2040. In order to balance the budget at those spending totals, we would have to double the highest income tax rate to 70%, raise payroll taxes to 30%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise to twice the average of U.S. trading partners. Or if we tried to borrow to finance all this spending, our debt ratings would slip to junk bond status, according to an analysis by Standard and Poor’s. Republicans share a hefty part of the blame for creating the most fiscally unaffordable new spending program in the past quarter century: the Medicare prescription drug bill, with an unfunded liability that is larger than the GDP of every other country in the world. But the "deficit hawk" Democrats have been equally disingenuous. Most Democrats who voted against President Bush’s prescription drug bill did so because the multi-trillion-dollar plan wasn’t generous enough to seniors. They have also rejected every overture by Mr. Bush to shore up Social Security’s long-term finances, even a proposal to trim future benefits for wealthier retirees. Every White House proposal to cut spending in this year’s budget — agriculture subsidies to upper income farmers, slight cutbacks in Medicaid payments, reductions in Amtrak subsidies, a decline in pork barrel highway projects — has been rejected by the "deficit hawks" in Congress. So thank heaven for the tax cuts that have helped to spur the economy that is now throwing off higher tax revenues. As the chart shows, those revenues are now rising back to their modern average as a share of GDP, just as supporters of the tax cuts predicted. And if the tax cuts are made permanent, and as the economy grows and incomes continue to rise, Americans will be paying even more in taxes as they move into higher tax brackets. The real windfall here isn’t for the rich but for Washington. Instead of griping, Mr. Spratt ought to be doing cartwheels.

Response:

> July 15, 2005; Page A10 > Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and > budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and > deficits decline, it’s still bad news.

The deficit is still over $350 BILLION this year alone. While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and security continue to plunge down the toilet. How long can you delude yourself?

Response:

> While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and > security continue to plunge down the toilet. > How long can you delude yourself?

This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal government should be responsible for our security, but why for our health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if we want these services and to what level.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and > security continue to plunge down the toilet. > How long can you delude yourself? >This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our >country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be >responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal >government should be responsible for our security, but why for our >health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? >The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support >any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the >military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal >government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local >government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire >protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if >we want these services and to what level.

You must see the extreme frustration emanating from the Bolsheviks, Chamblee, Wouk and their parrots as their cause becomes farther and farther from any chance of reality. Enjoy their pathetic sniveling, whining and tears while you can as they are getting closer to extinction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and >>security continue to plunge down the toilet. >>How long can you delude yourself? >This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our >country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be >responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal >government should be responsible for our security, but why for our >health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? >The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support >any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the >military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal >government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local >government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire >protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if >we want these services and to what level. > You must see the extreme frustration emanating from the Bolsheviks, > Chamblee, Wouk and their parrots as their cause becomes farther > and farther from any chance of reality. Enjoy their pathetic > sniveling, whining and tears while you can as they are getting closer > to extinction.

<G>

Response:

Leave a Comment

Wal-Mart/China Connection…..4th of July Patriotism

Question:

On this 4th of July weekend, we all need to consider the Red Star rising in the East which is becoming not only an economic, but also a military threat to the Western world. And we need to consider that Wal-Mart relies very much on Chinese imports to stock their shelves with cheap, both in price and quality, goods. So, out of a sense of patriotism this 4th of July weekend, I would encourage you to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart or, if you must, do not purchase AND goods from Wal-Mart or any other store which are made, manufactured, or otherwise procurred from, Chinese sources. I know this may mean that some of you may have to go barefoot this weekend, cause it’s nearly impossible to find reasonable priced shoes that are NOT made in China, but offer it up as penance for your greed in being a part of the reason that the USA has lost so many manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, and other third world countries and is fast become a singularly service-oriented company who’s primary cultural export to the remainer of the world is rap music.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > On this 4th of July weekend, we all need to consider the Red Star rising in > the East which is becoming not only an economic, but also a military threat > to the Western world. And we need to consider that Wal-Mart relies very much > on Chinese imports to stock their shelves with cheap, both in price and > quality, goods. So, out of a sense of patriotism this 4th of July weekend, I > would encourage you to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart or, if you must, do not > purchase AND goods from Wal-Mart or any other store which are made, > manufactured, or otherwise procurred from, Chinese sources. I know this may > mean that some of you may have to go barefoot this weekend, cause it’s > nearly impossible to find reasonable priced shoes that are NOT made in > China, but offer it up as penance for your greed in being a part of the > reason that the USA has lost so many manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, > and other third world countries and is fast become a singularly > service-oriented company who’s primary cultural export to the remainer of > the world is rap music.

Avoid Wal-Mart during the 4th of July weekend out of a sense patriotism? Fuck that! A patriot should avoid Wal-Mart. Period! Why focus on the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? The broader effects of offshoring will be appearing in homes near you soon.

Response:

> Why focus on the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? The broader effects > of offshoring will be appearing in homes near you soon.

It already has. But despite what the leftists want you to believe it’s probably had much more of a positive impact than negative.

Response:

For the record, 80% of the stock in Wal-Mart is made in China – 80%! What ahppened to Sam Walton’s "promise" to only buy American made goods? Well, it morphed into we buy American when we can and then more informally, we wouldn’t buy American if we had to. Then again, we – the US (and to a lesser extent, Japan) – have turned China ito the world’s manufacturing plant. Additionally, no matter where you go, Target, K-Mart, etc, it’s difficult to buy even a charcoal grill that’s not made in China (Webers may still US made, but I’m not sure). So, when you buy those US flags to wave or display at your house or those red, white ‘n blue coffee mugs or flag-covered t-shirts from A&N, rest assured that you are most likely getting a Chinese (or Indonesian) made product. Greg

Response:

Why Wal Mart? Why not nearly ALL US companies who CHOSE to get their products produced cheaply because they could make MORE profit this way. Change the government in your country if you want change… The amount of VERY wealthy people keeps growing as does the wealth of the government. It’s normal people who are screwed. Change the politics. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

For those inclined to take a more critical look at what/all that is going on around them in these Very Interesting Times. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html http://datanation.com/fallacies/ http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/ Start with, "red herring." Americans sold out Americans… for the Buck. The Closed Lock Loops in place that made sure Americans were, "all right," abandoned by…. Americans. Inculcation of False Logic patterns, the greatest tool of corporate/gubmint powers that be, for any agenda, all agendas. Millions live and breathe such now, ingrained.

Response:

I can’t disagree with the idea, as suggested in your posting. But, may I present a bit of irony, at least the way it exists in my area? I’m located in the midwest…Illinois…in which one of the main industries is agriculture. We have many rural/farming communities. My city, while not "tiny", is still very much tied to ag-business. Most of the small towns that surround *my* city could be described as "flag wavin’ supporters of GWB." My city, is an island of "blue" in the middle of the sea of "red." We’re the home of a major university….so, no real surprise there, eh? (grin) So, here’s the irony, if you will…. Why, when you go to Wal-mart–in my city, you see an ocean of "W ‘04" bumper stickers, along with the flags on windows and other patriotic stuff. I would say most of it is clearly in support of W, etc. (I have honestly commented on this to friends.) In fact, the former drummer in my own band…a big time W supporter…replied to my question of "how can you shop there, when they get all their stuff from China?" like this, "F*ck that, I go where the bargains are." Spoken like a *true* American. (yet the man rides a Harley, and criticizes "rice burners.") In my city, it’s the *liberals* who protest buying goods made in China and other countries who abuse their labor forces. You see the "protests" and literature, all over town, but especially in and around the campus area. Seems like we "liberals" have got it all wrong, at least according to our *local* chapter of busheviks!! Or….do we?!?!?! You might want to think about that. I would suggest that many whom you call "liberal", as if it’s a dirty word, are not so "unpatriotic", as you seem to think. And to me…even more important, proves the hypocrisy of many bushevik "patriots." Mike

Response:

Bust the unions…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On this 4th of July weekend, we all need to consider the Red Star rising > in > the East which is becoming not only an economic, but also a military > threat > to the Western world. And we need to consider that Wal-Mart relies very > much > on Chinese imports to stock their shelves with cheap, both in price and > quality, goods. So, out of a sense of patriotism this 4th of July > weekend, I > would encourage you to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart or, if you must, do > not > purchase AND goods from Wal-Mart or any other store which are made, > manufactured, or otherwise procurred from, Chinese sources. I know this > may > mean that some of you may have to go barefoot this weekend, cause it’s > nearly impossible to find reasonable priced shoes that are NOT made in > China, but offer it up as penance for your greed in being a part of the > reason that the USA has lost so many manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, > and other third world countries and is fast become a singularly > service-oriented company who’s primary cultural export to the remainer of > the world is rap music. > Why Wal Mart? > Why not nearly ALL US companies who CHOSE to get their products produced > cheaply because they could make MORE profit this way. > Change the government in your country if you want change… > The amount of VERY wealthy people keeps growing as does the wealth of the > government. > It’s normal people who are screwed. > Change the politics.

Response:

Where are you getting you figures? Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this more banter to try and destroy a fine organization that Sam Walton (an American to the core) built from his blood, sweat and tears? I though that what Mr. Walton did epitomized the American dream. It seems, though, that once something is built very well and highly sucessful, people want to destroy it. Jeleousy and anger towards those who won’t give you an undeserved, overpaid and underworked job??? Go work for an auto union. No he did not belive in unions. Anyone who understands economics doesn’t either. Unions are not good for the economy. But, he did believe in taking care of the employees and he did. Walmart had one of the finest set of corporate HR policies and procedures around. But, the unioinists wanted to destroy that, to take something that doesn’t belong to them. People have to ealize that it is not economically nor morally sound to create a career at menial jobs. Why should a cashier without an education, training or any level of personal or corporate loyalty make $18/hr? I say get off you lazy F$%&ing ass and work for a living, not take from an organization that helps your economy. Did you know that every car GM produces $1500 goes towards the employee retirement fund? And that there are uion employes making 6 figures (not including bonuses and benefit package) and working less than 500 hours per year? Well, no wonder 25000 people are losing their jobs at one company alone. Why do many retailers look at foreign products? a) better quality, b) cheaper, c) not posible to get the same product at the same price locally d) obviously better financial sense. If you can’t get a similar produc for about the same as you can by shipping it from 8000 miles away, then there’s not a problem with the company, but with the system that creates this imbalance. This is simple: balance employee wages. Destroy unions and make minimum wage $10/hr. Beyond that make the government responsible for policing their own labour laws. This is a huge chunk of what we pay them for. Remember that the majority of the corporate Western world has realized that if employees are well taken care of, they produce. But, if they force benefits via strikes and unreasonable demands, employee costs go through the roof to the point of destroying the company itself. And, productivity goes down, worker morale goes down, employee satisfaction goes down, sick time goes through the roof, average time on the job drops from 1950 hours per year to less than half of that (equals about 3 hour per day of productivity) and the quality of what is being produced goes through the floor. An example is the computer industry vs the auto industry. The computer industry produces well and has a higher average salary than the auto industry. How can this be if industry cannot be self-regulating and only the companies make money? Well, they have realized the power of the employee in simple profit making. The auto industry employees, however, make less money and never hav any oportunity for personal/professional growth. This is stifling and creates a psychological condition whereby the employee becomes frustrated and takes this frustration out on the company. Stop bashing the company the supports YOUR economy. If Wal-Mart were to close tomorrow, how many people would be out of work? What would be the total and net ecomonic effects on a micro level? On a macro level? The cascading effects? Think before you speak. Go ahead and bit the hands that feed you.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> For the record, 80% of the stock in Wal-Mart is made in China – 80%! > What ahppened to Sam Walton’s "promise" to only buy American made > goods? Well, it morphed into we buy American when we can and then more > informally, we wouldn’t buy American if we had to. Then again, we – the > US (and to a lesser extent, Japan) – have turned China ito the world’s > manufacturing plant. > Additionally, no matter where you go, Target, K-Mart, etc, it’s > difficult to buy even a charcoal grill that’s not made in China (Webers > may still US made, but I’m not sure). > So, when you buy those US flags to wave or display at your house or > those red, white ‘n blue coffee mugs or flag-covered t-shirts from A&N, > rest assured that you are most likely getting a Chinese (or Indonesian) > made product. > Greg

Response:

Figures come from recent article posted on MSNBC’s site. Sam Walton would be rolling in his grave if he knew about this! Greg

Response:

> It already has. But despite what the leftists want you to believe it’s > probably had much more of a positive impact than negative.

Funny, xenophobia is usually a right-wing thing…

Response:

> is this more banter to try and destroy a fine organization that Sam > Walton built from his blood, sweat and tears?

The blood, seat and tars of his employees you mean. > No he did not belive in unions.

Of course he didn’t. He’d have had to pay decent wages and provide decent benefits if his shops were unionized. > Unions are not good for the economy

Unions are great for the economy and they’re great for workers. You can thank unions for the 40 hour work week. You can thank a union if you’ve ever – had employer provided health insurance – received overtime – had a paid vacation – had a retirement plan – had disability insurance – received the benefits of being a member of a credit union – needed unemployment insurance > Did you know that every car GM produces $1500 goes towards > the employee retirement fund?

Did you know that every car produced in the United States by Toyota, Mercedes, BMW and (soon) Hyundai is subsidized to the tune of at least $1000 by the taxpayers of the states in which the plants are located?

Response:

Get your facts straight. You can thank unions for the rate of inflation and the cost of health care, cars and many other big ticket items whose final cost represents 60 labour. You can thank the government and auto companies for employee benefits, the 40 hour work week and a host of other labour-related issue, not unions. If you actually had an education you would know this. You can thank the unions for the denegration of education as you no longer need a decent education to get riduculous wages. There is no way the a dishwasher deserves $18/hr. Why would someone go to school when the union will give you everything on a silver platter. Sam Walton built Wal-mart, not the employees. Remember the place of employees: they are hired help, not the ones to dictate how a company is to be run. This grossly arrogant and out of place. If you knew trhe slightest about business, you would realize that it is the owner who does the most work, is the only one to take any risks, is the one who puts up the money, and the one who provides the jobs. Why should employees gain ALL the benefits. The greatest cause of business closure currently is directly related to employee issues, not owner issues. Unions should be made illegal, especially because the they come out of the mafia. The concept of the union is a racket, a shake-down, black-mail. In any other situation it would be called extortion.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> is this more banter to try and destroy a fine organization that Sam > Walton built from his blood, sweat and tears? > The blood, seat and tars of his employees you mean. > No he did not belive in unions. > Of course he didn’t. He’d have had to pay decent wages and provide > decent benefits if his shops were unionized. > Unions are not good for the economy > Unions are great for the economy and they’re great for workers. > You can thank unions for the 40 hour work week. > You can thank a union if you’ve ever > – had employer provided health insurance > – received overtime > – had a paid vacation > – had a retirement plan > – had disability insurance > – received the benefits of being a member of a credit union > – needed unemployment insurance > Did you know that every car GM produces $1500 goes towards > the employee retirement fund? > Did you know that every car produced in the United States by Toyota, > Mercedes, BMW and (soon) Hyundai is subsidized to the tune of at least > $1000 by the taxpayers of the states in which the plants are located?

Response:

Well said… The term "liberal" has become derrogatory in the hands of the conservatives. Yet these are the ones who consistantly prove themselves to be hypocrates. They have the worst social programs, the least economic resposibility (Bush has the largest budget in history to fund an illegal war where 9 billion has gone "missing" and no investigation will take place, amonst other things…hmmm…), the least respect for the democratic process, etc. If the US is for the people by the people, then why not have less military spending for action if foreign countries and more domestic health care? Why spend so much to kill foreigners and make a few corporate sharholders extrememly rich? Why not try to save a few lives? I’m Canadian and, in Canada, we look out for one another. We place human life over the machine of war. We think less of ourselves and more of others; we are NOT "self-centred". This is why we have the most stable economy and highest standard of living in the world: we don’t waste the majority of our money on war with other countries based on a hypcritical ideal that is not even supported, nor adhered to by the very people making the war in the first place. We also have a low rate of suicide, heart disease and other stress-related disorders. We live longer with a very enriched quality of living. BTW: the US really doesn’t have a strong left. Democrats are actually slightly right of centre. So the question becomes: how far right are you? Are you a moderate or a fascist?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I can’t disagree with the idea, as suggested in your posting. But, may I >present a bit of irony, at least the way it exists in my area? > I’m located in the midwest…Illinois…in which one of the main > industries is agriculture. We have many rural/farming communities. My > city, while not "tiny", is still very much tied to ag-business. > Most of the small towns that surround *my* city could be described as > "flag wavin’ supporters of GWB." > My city, is an island of "blue" in the middle of the sea of "red." We’re > the home of a major university….so, no real surprise there, eh? (grin) > So, here’s the irony, if you will…. > Why, when you go to Wal-mart–in my city, you see an ocean of "W ‘04" > bumper stickers, along with the flags on windows and other patriotic > stuff. I would say most of it is clearly in support of W, etc. (I have > honestly commented on this to friends.) > In fact, the former drummer in my own band…a big time W > supporter…replied to my question of "how can you shop there, when they > get all their stuff from China?" like this, "F*ck that, I go where the > bargains are." Spoken like a *true* American. > (yet the man rides a Harley, and criticizes "rice burners.") > In my city, it’s the *liberals* who protest buying goods made in China and > other countries who abuse their labor forces. You see the "protests" and > literature, all over town, but especially in and around the campus area. > Seems like we "liberals" have got it all wrong, at least according to our > *local* chapter of busheviks!! > Or….do we?!?!?! > You might want to think about that. I would suggest that many whom you > call "liberal", as if it’s a dirty word, are not so "unpatriotic", as you > seem to think. > And to me…even more important, proves the hypocrisy of many bushevik > "patriots." > Mike

Response:

From the way that you write, I bet that you barely graduated from high school. Your grammar is outright atrocious, and your knowledge of the labor movement is seriously lacking. As one who holds undergraduate and graduate-level degrees in computer science, I know the industry very well. If you have not read lately, salaries are plummeting due to offshore outsourcing to India, and people are leaving the field in droves. Furthermore, computer-related salaries are not based on a forty-hour week. I have worked at places where sixty hours a week was the norm. Most software development organizations are little more than modern day sweatshops.

Response:

> On this 4th of July weekend, we all need to consider the Red Star rising > in > the East which is becoming not only an economic

No we dont. Move along cross-posting Troll. Rob

Response:

>> It already has. But despite what the leftists want you to believe it’s >probably had much more of a positive impact than negative. > Funny, xenophobia is usually a right-wing thing…

Usually. Now everybody can get in on it. Exciting! — Les Cargill

Response:

> From the way that you write, I bet that you barely graduated from high > school. Your grammar is outright atrocious, and your knowledge of the labor > movement is seriously lacking. > As one who holds undergraduate and graduate-level degrees in computer > science, I know the industry very well. If you have not read lately, > salaries are plummeting due to offshore outsourcing to India,

That’s beyond arguable. At least in any hard-data sense, pay has pretty much topped out about the pre-1999 level. You can’t expect employment to re-rise to 1999 levels. Nobody’s throwing money at it. The outsourcing is yet another bubble. > and people are > leaving the field in droves.

Sorry, it was flooded. There was a gold rush, then it popped. Bummer. Around 1980, programmers made around $12 an hour, or so. Low paid skilled labor rates. > Furthermore, computer-related salaries are > not based on a forty-hour week. I have worked at places where sixty hours > a week was the norm. Most software development organizations are little > more than modern day sweatshops.

If professional certifcation ( like a bar exam ) was made the standard, there’d be even fewer employed. If it’s a sweatshop, vote with your feet, or do what you have to to fix it. But so long as it’s macho to brag about hours worked, it’ll be a problem. How about forcing your employer to publish real metrics, instead of "Office Space" ones? Think about how to do this, and do it. — Les Cargill

Response:

True….so true. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > BTW: the US really doesn’t have a strong left. Democrats are actually > slightly right of centre. So the question becomes: how far right are you? > Are you a moderate or a fascist?

Response:

>>is this more banter to try and destroy a fine organization that Sam >Walton built from his blood, sweat and tears? > The blood, seat and tars of his employees you mean.

His, too. You have no idea. Sam’s employees who stayed through from the IPO until retirement got *extremely* well. Sam whipped a little Okie/Arkie thrift-think on people, and it took. If you think WalMart is doing anything except adapting to a very fast-changing reality, think again. hey, fifty years ago it was Sears. Fifty, or even twenty years on, it’ll be somebody else. This being said, those who invest in China better keep the cash flow up, because you *own nothing* there. >No he did not belive in unions. > Of course he didn’t. He’d have had to pay decent wages and provide > decent benefits if his shops were unionized.

Nope. Guess again. It’s common in the "fly over states" for people to not be interested in unions. They are viewed as carpetbaggers. >Unions are not good for the economy > Unions are great for the economy and they’re great for workers.

They can be. They can be-not, too. > You can thank unions for the 40 hour work week.

Mostly, although govt. employee work rules helped, too. But it’s well known now that 40 is a good round productive figure. It also harkens to the post-Depression period, when people thought having somebody else employed was a better idea than 20 or so hours more a week in pay. > You can thank a union if you’ve ever > – had employer provided health insurance > – received overtime > – had a paid vacation > – had a retirement plan > – had disability insurance > – received the benefits of being a member of a credit union > – needed unemployment insurance

You can mostly thank the gummint. After WWII, there was general wage freeze on, to keep the rapid demand for workers from driving costs up. Those things all developed as perks, in an environment where competition for workers was hot and salaries frozen. Unions had an effect, between 1900 and say, 1950/60, but they’ve mostly acheived their goals, and will continue to find it harder to justify their existence. But tort lawyers helped even more. Could things regress? I don’t know. Doubt it. >Did you know that every car GM produces $1500 goes towards >the employee retirement fund? > Did you know that every car produced in the United States by Toyota, > Mercedes, BMW and (soon) Hyundai is subsidized to the tune of at least > $1000 by the taxpayers of the states in which the plants are located?

But the total return in wages, taxes and other money far exceeds the kilodollar. The car industries are a swamp of subsidies – that’s why the damned things cost so much. — Les Cargill

Response:

It seems like some people need to get out more. And the rest of us need to start making better use of our email/newsgroup filters.

Response:

> Figures come from recent article posted on MSNBC’s site. <

Such a credible source as well.

Response:

> Get your facts straight.

I did. You didn’t. > You can thank the government and auto companies > for employee benefits, the 40 hour work week and a host of other > labour-related issue, not unions.

There you go. Presenting the wrong "facts." Again. > Sam Walton built Wal-mart, not the employees.

So he staffed all those store all by himself? That must have been the reason for his death… Overwork. > Remember the place of employees

The "place"? In your world they’re nothing but chattle. How 19th century of you. > The greatest cause of business closure currently is directly > related to employee issues, not owner issues.

Bullshit. > Unions should be made illegal, especially because the they come out of the > mafia.

The Mafia? You probably believe that "The War Of The Worlds" is a documentary.

Response:

> Well said… > The term "liberal" has become derrogatory in the hands of the conservatives.<

Especially when today’s liberals seem to fit the description of fascists and communists. They just don’t know it. They also spam groups with bullshit like this. I guess they thought this group was alt.guitar.offtopicpointlessbullshit. or alt.guitar.beadumbasscrossposter

Response:

> I’m Canadian and, in Canada, we look out for one another. We place human > life over the machine of war.<

No shit. How convenient when you share the same land mass as the U.S.

Response:

Leave a Comment

OT – USA Today said…

Question:

I saw in USA Today…. They mentioned the Social Securtiy *surplus*…. Folks, those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite some time… you do NOT get a refund. The ‘overpayment’ by those of us who pay into SS in the USA will be about 163 BILLION this year…! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Now, someone should chime in about who exactly suggested to congress that we SPEND this money, collected for SS, on NON-SS items. While we’ve been having a SURPLUS of SS for YEARS AND YEARS, folks seem worried about SS deficits looming some years down the road. This is the "secret tax" folks. If the US had INVESTED or merely SAVED this money, well… that could never happen when politicians are involved… Now, some have suggested "investing" some of this SURPLUS… that means, they want to invest some of YOUR money… money YOU have OVERPAID into the SS system, so that you might have MORE money when you *retire*… alas, there are plenty who are against that suggestion. This OVERCHARGE you pay is already allocated to be used for stuff you no nothing about. Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is… gtski

Response:

> I saw in USA Today….I saw on FoxNews Today….I….OK- I’m….stupid. Still; > Turns out i just figured out that the US has ALWAYS STOLEN this money by lumping the take in w/ *all* IRS purloins and, well… > it’s being splattered across everything from HUd to DoD! > *Now* I almost sorta understand what Gore was alluding to w/ that whole "Lock Box" bit.

> Oh… this politics thing, it’s a nasty beast it is…and I’m as stupid about domestic politics as I am the international stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They don’t all run around farms in Mao costumes over China way? Please help me out here paul, pmg, TD, wheaton, SoK66, leaky, -oh god- > gtski

Response:

> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund

You’re an idiot. There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean poverty. But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t matter to you.

Response:

> those of you who PAY SS *taxes* have been OVERPAYING for quite > some time… you do NOT get a refund > You’re an idiot. > There’s no "overpayment" because the Social Security system isn’t an > insurance policy. It’s current workers helping out retired workers. It’s > a contract between generations to ensure that old age doesn’t mean > poverty. > But, since you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself, it doesn’t > matter to you.

and you clearly have no clue as to what ss is or how it works. if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. gtski raised a legitimate question… one that has been raised by political leaders on both sides of the aisle. he didn’t attack ss or suggest that it should be done away with. it needs fixed, and to do that you have to understand the mechanisms of how it works, and what could be done better, and what is being done (spending the current annual surplus) that perhaps shouldn’t be done. but you are a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, irregardless of the cost, and you really don’t care what happens to ss as long as you can make republicans look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, but trashing a republican is everything" is your mantra of hate. go crawl back under your rock. paul az

Response:

normally I wouldn’t say anything but since you picked on my typing today and I’m sick with the flu and feeling pissy, I’m gonna dish > if you were worth it, i would explain. your not. i wont. ….it needs fixed,

You’re not. I won’t. It needs to be fixed run-on sentences, no caps etc.

Response:

> i would explain. your not. i wont.

So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system works…

Response:

>> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…

Paul’s right, as usual. Pixie’s wrong, as usual. This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain it to you. See ya, John

Response:

How smoothly truth applies…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > but I am a one dimensional political hack, out to throw bombs, > irregardless of the cost, and I really don’t care what happens to ss as > long as I can make democrats look bad in the process. "truth is nothing, > but trashing a democrat is everything" is my mantra of hate. > I’ll go crawl back under my rock.

Response:

: >> i would explain. your not. i wont. : > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system : > works… : : Paul’s right, as usual. : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. : : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll explain : it to you. : : See ya, : John Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future generations of the elderly will be saddled with excessive reserves No problem though as the repugnicons are here to solve the problem.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > Paul’s right, as usual. > Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, > they’ll explain it to you. > See ya, > John

Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on everything BUT grandma. In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line "there’s no problem with Social Security."

Response:

> In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."

How come you are all concerned about debts? You wanna fork it over for Iraq and Haliburton? Why are you playing favoritism? One billion here, one billion there. It’ll be OK.

Response:

> > i would explain. your not. i wont. > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works…

Or notice which side of the aisle he was sitting on, when he mouthed off on the SC decision. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>i would explain. your not. i wont. >>So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system >>works… >Paul’s right, as usual. >Pixie’s wrong, as usual. >This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >income, than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, >they’ll explain it to you. >See ya, >John > Social Security has run a surplus for years, a process begun under Lyndon > Johnson and his Demo-liar cronies back in the mid 60’s to pay for the > Socialist "Great Society" debacle. To their great shame, Republicans latched > onto the scam and are just as bad as the Demo-crooks at spending SS taxes on > everything BUT grandma.

I remember when SS wasn’t taxed… so not only is the SS system OVERFUNDED by the tax-PAYERS… the beneficiaries must pay tax on the PORTION they DO get…! ! ! ! (Ugh…! ! ) What a *racket*..! ! ! > In exchange for the money taken from SS to pay for the general budget > expenditures, the Feds drop off "IOUs". A major part of the future mess the > politicians have created is the simple fact they’ll have to pay these debts, > and soon. They haven;t got the money, so they’ll either have to raise taxes, > cut benefits, or reduce the payout period by increasing the retirement age. > The best part in all this? It’s going to fall on the heads of the stupid, > young Socialist bastards who have fallen for the Demo-liars party line > "there’s no problem with Social Security."

The *boomers*… the largest single "voting block" to ever exist in the US. :-) Amazingly, it *appears* that if the whole scam… I mean SS *system* would have been LEFT ALONE… and/or the surpluses had been *saved*, the "boomers" might be livin large soon… ( or at least "largER" ;-)…) It seems like politicians seem to find the nooks and crannys that the voters don’t really *understand* and bleed whatever cash they can from it.

Response:

> > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security system > works… > This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More income, > than out go is a surplus.

So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about how the real world works.. Social Security isn’t an insurance program (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" to buy) and therefore has no "surplus." You’re comparing apples and oranges.

Response:

>> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works..

We did the real world comparison once and YOU are the HOLLOW man who hasn’t done shit. For years I managed medium size businesses that had over 100 employees, and YOU do NOT have a CLUE as to how the real world works. > Social Security isn’t an insurance program

You IGNORANT TWIT. I NEVER made any such comparison! Someday you’ll learn to follow a thread! > (like the auto insurance that I’m sure you’re pissed off at being "forced" > to buy)

You would be on a more firm footing if you were sure that the Earth was flat, you MORON. > and therefore has no "surplus."

If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would be called a SURPLUS! Take any High School level Economics class. There also quite a few Tutor’s available, so get someone to READ the textbook for you, so that someone can explain these comcepts that are obviously well beyond your ability to comprehend. > You’re comparing apples and oranges.

I made NO COMPARISONS, you MUST get your MEDS CHECKED, you are hallucinating AGAIN! See ya, John

Response:

> >> This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >> income, >> than out go is a surplus. > So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about > how the real world works.. > We did the real world comparison once

Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. There’s no "surplus." Figure it out. > If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would > be called a SURPLUS!

You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used. There is no surplus. > I made

Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.

Response:

> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance.

DUH.. > There’s no "surplus."

Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call that left over balance what? Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! See ya, John

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > : >> i would explain. your not. i wont. > : > > : > So sayeth someone that doesn’t understand how the Social Security > system > : > works… > : > : Paul’s right, as usual. > : Pixie’s wrong, as usual. > : > : This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More > income, > : than out go is a surplus. Go take a High School econ class, they’ll > explain > : it to you. > : > : See ya, > : John > Yeah right, that’s why SS is in crisis, because future > generations of the elderly will be saddled with > excessive reserves > No problem though as the repugnicons are here to > solve the problem.

lol, you are sooooooooo clueless. future obligations are huge. future surpluses are non existent. today’s surpluses are being spent (as they have for 40+ years) so are not available to cover the coming shortfall. when the system started, there were something like 25 workers supporting each retiree. that is NOT the case today, and the rate is slipping fast for the future. there will be something like 2 workers supporting each retiree. that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy". buy a book, or turn your tv off of nickelodian. buy a vowel. something! you need a clue of some kind. paul az – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics, if you take the INCOME, > and subtract the outgoing DEBT, and you have money left over, you call > that left over balance what? > Go back and read all of the stories about Social Security, and you will > find that EVERYONE, on EVERY side admits that it IS CURRENTLY taking in > MORE than it PAYS OUT you FUCKING MORON! Just ONCE, consider the FACTS! > See ya, > John

he doesn’t read. he doesn’t even watch current events on tv. all of his lefty heroes even understand and use the terminology that he is rejecting. he is without a clue, as usual. if a conservative/libertarian/non lefty ever said that water was wet, pixie would argue that it was all a lie and a right wing plot. at one time the stereotype of a paranoid conspiracy fearing freak was considered to be more typical of the right than the left. pixie and many (not all) of the lefties here are making a concerted effort to re-write that stereotype. utimately, pixie and some others here at aga are slowly turning into trolls. others here (mulay, morgen) were trolls when they arrived. paul az

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>This year the program will collect more than it will pay out. More >>>income, >>>than out go is a surplus. >>So sayeth someone who’s not paying attention and doesn’t know dick about >>how the real world works.. >We did the real world comparison once > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. It isn’t a business. > There’s no "surplus." Figure it out.

Wow… Paxi is getting a little heated here… "It isn’t a business"… now this is Pax at his most insightful. Well, neither is govt in general, eh Pax..?? So, all those "budget surpluses" of a few years back, weren’t really *surpluses*… ok. Ummm… I’m wondering what you call SSI… >If a program has a LARGER INCOME, than it does OUT GO, the different would >be called a SURPLUS! > You can call it Ethel for all the sense you’d make. The fact is that > there is NO Social Security surplus. A "surplus" would be a pile of > money, say, OVER THERE, in a box, that isn’t being used.

Well yes, $163 billion this year will be, say "OVER THERE"… it’ll be collected for SS, won’t be SPENT on what it is/was INTENDED for, which means it’s "surplus. And this SS surplus (Paxi, dude.. even the govt calls it that) is then "moved" to somewhere else and SPENT.. or as you say USED. Maybe you are suggesting that all the "surplus" taxes collected from taxpayers should not qualify as a surplus and should just be USED… > There is no surplus.

Sure there is. And everyone but you seems to think so… and your concept of NO SURPLUS might come in handy in Washington… for if there can be no surplus, there can be no deficit… eh Pax..??? >I made > Glad to hear that the toilet training is coming along.

Pax, it’s good to hear you’re glad about something, even if it’s merely a sarcastic remark of little use…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > When I wrote "…that is not good. but no problem though, the democrats will tell you that everything is okay. "Don’t worry, Be happy"…" > and will not part with. It is part of the "Dylan Thomas" aspect that keeps me going. Fucking asshole liberals. > paul "the cape" HERO of Mesa, AZ

Response:

> > Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. > DUH.. > There’s no "surplus." > Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics

Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk? Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass? No. There is no Social Security "surplus."

Response:

>> Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? Where’s it kept?

Since passage of President Johnson’s Great Society, the Social Security surplus gets dumped into the General Fund and is spent. There are those that would like to take that money and put it into a Social Security fund. If that had been done, and it was drawing interest there wouldn’t be the same looming problem that we face today. See ya, John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Hey. Asshole. Social Security isn’t insurance. >DUH.. >>There’s no "surplus." >Let’s take it back to Elementry School Mathmatics > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus?

Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected through payroll taxes and other payments. > Where’s it kept? Is it in a big brown bag on Dubya’s desk?

Ummmm…. does it matter to you exactly where it’s "kept"..?? > Is it packed in balloons that’ve been shoved up your ass?

Uh-oh… you’re sounding like Elmis after a binge… > No.

Right. It’s not there. > There is no Social Security "surplus."

PAX, you’re a fan of CNN… here’s one for you… http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/social.security.ap/index.html From that article… "..they were drafting a bill that would wall off the surplus payroll tax revenues Social Security is slated to receive until 2017." and… Rep. Shaw said… "The American people believe that there is something out there in West Virginia with their names on it. There is not now — but there will be if we pass this bill." Pax, he doesn’t mean the surplus MONEY will be there…! ! ! I know, it’s hard for you to comprehend. More from the article… … "While the federal government would continue to spend the surplus tax money…" … " The government would continue to spend the excess revenues…" (Paxi… John explained to you, *excess* revenues equals *surplus*) … "Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said: "I’ve been consistent and faithful to the idea that we shouldn’t spend the Social Security surplus on other initiatives…" Oops..! ! ! A Democrat, a DEMOCRAT, suggests that we should spend the "surplus" on "other initiatives"… my, my… Pax, are the surpluses in a bag shoved up HIS ass..????? Now, Paxidude… about the "insurance" aspect of Social Security… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/28/shields.socialsecurity/inde… A quote from this opinion… " For 70 years, the enduring premise of the program has been that the publicly financed insurance and pension system…" Oh shit..! ! ! Pax, say it so..! ! ! (again and again.. SS isn’t insurance..! ! !) Ok, maybe he is wrong, and you are right… it’s possible… (but I doubt it) Theres lots more there about "SS surpluses" etc… and I suspect the writer is more a-tuned to the specifics than Timepax could EVER be… Now, this CNN article… http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.socialsecurity.tm/inde… From the article… "…He remembers a White House meeting in the mid-1980s at which he raised the idea of overhauling the program as a way to cut the deficit.." (this was during the Regan admin) Shee-iiit..! ! ! Someone in the Regan Admin was "on it" (to reform enlightened of Mr. Moore… oh, that it didn’t happen. But… the Reps stated… "It was one thing every Republican said was off the table — even these revolutionary Republicans," Moore recalls… (this is about *SS reform*) Wait… these were Republicans saying this… isn’t’ this what the Deems are whining about now…???? Aren’t they a little late..??? No, they’ve been co-opting Rep planks for YEARs..! ! ! ! Then again, it was folks within the Reps who were trying to address the *problem* years ago to get an early *fix* in…. From the article…. "By turning every American into an investor, and a government safety net into a system that rewards judicious risk and individual initiative, Republicans believe they can change how Americans see every question from free trade to capital gains — tax cuts." The above concept, is contrary to the Dems quasi-socialist approach… but seems quite *progressive* in nature, and more in tune with the *American way*… IMMHO… Now… this article goes on to say more and more about the *state* of the SS system, *surpluses*, etc… From the article…. "What will actually happen in 2018, according to the Social Security trustees who oversee the program, is that the money paid out in benefits will begin to exceed the amount collected in taxes. And since Social Security will run a surplus until then (and has been running one for some time), it has billions available that it can tap to fill the gap. Even under conservative estimates, the system as it stands will have enough money to pay all its promised benefits until 2042 and most of its obligations for decades after." PAX..! ! ! NOTE the words "…Social Security will run a surplus.." What is *funny* is that the article mentions that SS has "..billions available"… ummm… where..??? Like Pax says, they are *used*… meaning "spent"… as in, NOT saved. So these *billions* are like the un-funded pension plans in the private sector. But… the article claims… ".. even under conservative estimates…" it’ll be solvent till 2042 and beyond… Later, in this article… the following.. "As Bush planned his first presidential campaign, he brought in experts to brief him on how privatization had worked in places like Chile, and even Sweden –surely one of the rare instances of a Republican taking the lead from a country known for a near socialist welfare system." Another *opinion* from CNN… " And yet Bush is right about one big thing: Social Security does face a fiscal challenge — one that will be less painful to handle the sooner we tackle it." leave it alone, no changes needed…etc..etc.." And there’s more…. " Though policymakers talk of Social Security as a trust fund (or, in the imagery that Al Gore and Saturday Night Live made famous, "a lock box"), it was enacted as an insurance program in which current workers pay for older generations. Today more than three-quarters of payroll taxes go to pay benefits." Pax… dude… CNN is saying that SS "… was enacted as and insurance program…" … ! ! ! ! ! Set them straight Paxi..! ! ! Again from the CNN article "… projected shortfall is not a new situation, or even the worst that Social Security has faced. " More… "What about Bush’s proposed individual accounts? On their own, they do nothing to solve Social Security’s funding problems. Even the White House admits as much." Wait… the White House admits it..! ! ! ! Sounds pretty *honest* to me… are you feeling hood-winked Pax..???? Maybe you just aren’t listening. Finally, one of the most important statements… "At the end of 2004, about 48 million Americans — not just retired workers but also the disabled and the spouses and children of deceased workers — drew $41.5 billion a month in benefits. Even with 401(k)s and pensions figured, nearly two-thirds of those who receive benefits count on it for more than half their income; a third rely on it for 90 percent." This shows how folks are NOT saving enough of their PAY… sure they wasn’t their kids/grandkids to have $160 sneakers, limos for their 9th grade graduation, $150/month cable bills… then they rely on SS for As far as financing the "private accounts"… the following perspective… "… he explained that the government might have to borrow $100 billion to $150 billion a year for 10 years to finance the new private accounts. Participants say the traders told Snow that the markets could easily absorb that much. As a bond executive said, "Mr. Secretary, that’s a rounding error in our business." " Take note of that folks… $100 billion to $150 billion over ten years… a "rounding era" in the bond trading business. How much was the war in Iraq costing us..??? 83 billion…??? Amortized over 5-6 years… well, some of you will get it… Ok… now for the man… Bill Clinton himself… http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/ind… Clinton… "… by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people.." Oh Pax… Clinton says a "surplus" comes in EVERY MONTH..! ! ! But Pax, Clinton didn’t say "where" this surplus *is*, or is *kept*… maybe it’s kept up Clintons ass…eh Paxi..???? Then, on to… http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/25/rec.budget.deficit/index.html Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota… said back in 2001…. "The Medicare surplus is gone, the Social Security surplus is almost all gone," Conrad said. "But we’ve had no choice … we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Timepax… this guy says "surplus" over and over…. I mean, WTF..???? Where is this guy getting his info…??? He talks about "Budget surplus"… "Medicare surplus"… SS surplus… PAXI.. where are all those surpluses kept…???? They were *used* right..??? SO how could they be surpluses…??? For all you Jr. Economists out there… it was interesting to note this in the article…. "That figure does not include expected new spending to increase airline security, compensate victims of the attacks, stimulate the economy and pay for further defense and security needs. Those additional measures are expected to cost significantly more than $50 billion. Part of the problem, Conrad said, is the economic slowdown is expected to result in a loss of about $60 billion in tax revenue next year. " This "slowdown" started during Clintons last year in office… His last quote… "…we must do what is necessary to strengthen the economy and defend the nation." Any of you Jr. Economists out there care to chime in on what govt fiscal measures are used to "strengthen the economy" in a recession..????

Response:

> > Okay asshole. Where’s the surplus? > Jerk-off, it’s right where they keep the SS funds that are collected > through payroll taxes and other payments.

Where might that be? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.

Response:

Leave a Comment

OT – Where WAS Bin Laden…

Question:

I can’t help but notice the following… (from the CNN article) What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the CIA and the White House. And this following quote… "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in Washington, so we [soldiered] on." May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? Maybe the next time Clinton is on Larry King he could talk about these "considerations". The *press*, who normally loves to take any story about Washington culpability firmly in its’ teeth, seem to have little to say about these "policy considerations" and the subsequent 9/11 attack. Mr. Clinton did say some rather nice things about Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, which means that he is still watching the polls quite closely. On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite light. gtski

Response:

OIL = dems and repubs with industrial interests plus old anti-communist bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy is my friend theory.

Response:

> On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it > a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite > light.

I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? See ya, John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it >a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite >light. > I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. > It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings > would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? > See ya, > John

Yes. I played it using a couple of Reverends guitars.. one with humbuckers, and one with P-90s. Very Nice..! ! The different "tone" settings give it a multi-facceted appeal… Reverend *seems* to be calling it a "practice amp", that can be used at small gigs. It is LOUD for such a small package, and while I didn’t get to play it REAL loud, I think it would in fact be usable at small gigs. One thing about trying it out at a show, since it can’t be "cranked up" it’s hard to tell the difference between 5 and 15 watts.. it is quite loud at the 5 watt setting. I think that if a bunch of guys sat down to jam, and they all had Goblins, it would be loud enough to be "fun" and not bring the cops. And I think everyone would get a "kick" playing these little beasts. My guess… if you try one, you’ll buy one. gtski PS- if a gigging musician wanted to buy a *new* rig that would cover most of what they needed to do, one could buy a Reverend guitar, a Kingsnake, a Goblin, and a couple of "Reverend Approved" pedals and be done. For the "bigger" venues, just add a Reverend external spkr, 1×12 or the new 2×12. NOTE – I don’t work for, nor am I affiliated in any way with the Reverend company, these are merely my opinions and mine alone. ;-)

Response:

> I can’t help but notice the following…

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite the article! > (from the CNN article) > What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had > developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and > then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the > CIA and the White House.

Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > And this following quote… > "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t > taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which > was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. > "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in > Washington, so we [soldiered] on." > May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" > allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..??

No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read some of it, if you can stand the pain. Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a complete plan. By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of a plan. In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, all plans in place. W et al ignored it… until finally, September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down by the Clinton admin nine months before, was approved in toto. Too late. Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it up by attacking Iraq. We’re still paying for it. __ Steve .

Response:

>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article!

Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html >(from the CNN article) >What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had >developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and >then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the >CIA and the White House. > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book…

No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ a bit on his "claims". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And this following quote… >"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain.

Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin Laden most of all. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan.

Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans that are put into action that *count*. > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of > a plan.

By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down. Clinton had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he defered in the last 6 months is a joke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place.

In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush would do what he didn’t… > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late.

Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* Bush had the balls to do it…??? > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq.

Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..??? We’re still paying for it. IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry sex-scandal. BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts. D-Day was but one battle of one theater of one war against one enemy. Google up some casualty figures… then google up some casualty figures of the next 6 months of war in Europe. Then compare that to the losses for then entire Afghan and Iraq confict over the last few years. While your on the subject of "costs", compare the dollar cost as a percentage of USA GNP for WWII, Korea, VietNam, Gulf war I, and Gulf war II… let’s hear your insight on comparitive "costs" of war/conflict. Do you have a beef with the Marshall Plan…??? That money, if saved and not spent, would by now provide free medical and retirement benefits for every American alive. Maybe it was better spent how it was…??? Were taxpayers crying about "spending our grand-kids money" back during the Marshall Plan…??? Are YOU missing those dollars…??? gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> __ > Steve > .

Response:

Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits…

Oh, horse crap. Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill couldn’t blow his own nose, it was all everyone else’s fault. But almighty George, he just blows his nose and that signals that millions of lackeys go kill people. You can’t have it both ways.

Response:

>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article! > Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html

… > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ > a bit on his "claims".

I’m reading the paperback edition… dated 2004. It’s dynamite. Provide a cite for any retraction of his… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>And this following quote… >>"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >>taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >>was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >>"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >>Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >>May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >>allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain. > Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, > same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t > pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of > PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden > and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin > Laden most of all.

Do you assert that this information is contained in the book referenced above (in the CNN article)? There was inside knowledge of a big meeting… if the Military could have pulled it off without telegraphing the missile launch (the book goes into detail), then Musharraf would have been over a barrel, at dinner with the American ambassador, assured that the missiles were ours, headed for Taliban camps. The military bungled it bad… telegraphed its punch with hours to go. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan. > Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan > constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans > that are put into action that *count*.

Indeed… where was W? > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have

handed Bush a war instead of > a plan. > By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he > and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA > would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down.

Then why did Bush do nothing? >Clinton > had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he > defered in the last 6 months is a joke.

If you don’t read the book, I’m not going to quote it all here for you. I urge the others reading here to read Clarke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place. > In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, > things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush > would do what he didn’t…

Remember the Millenium plot? Clinton nipped that one in the bud… what we learned from that was… nobody cares. You’re better off politically to let the attack come through, then you have carte blanche. Bush applied that lesson well. > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late. > Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin > handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* > Bush had the balls to do it…???

‘Befulded’? Freudian, that! Anyway, read the book. > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq. > Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..???

No… he got a hummer. Good on ‘im, I say. > We’re still paying for it.

What, the witch hunt, or the hummer? > IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… > and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while > Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry > sex-scandal.

I’d rather be remembered for staining Monica’s dress than reading a children’s book through 9/11… anyway, time will tell. > BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the > "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts.

Why? The current situation bears *no* comparison to D Day *at all*… one could more profitably compare it to WWI, where Wilson lied to the country about our inevitable future involvement in the conflict. In fact, the case can be made for a comparison to Pearl Harbor, where it certainly falls within the realm of possibility that the attack was allowed to happen in order to polarize the populace (and save crypto intel). I don’t think you’ll find that many that really give a damn about Iraq… this was Bush’s pet war, plain and simple, and it *completely fucked up* the War On Terror. Europeans are our direct ancestors… Iraq just pissed off the wrong president. Now *we* pay. __ Steve read Clarke .

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: > … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Oh, horse crap. > Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill > couldn’t blow his own nose, > it was all everyone else’s > fault. > But almighty George, he just > blows his nose and that signals > that millions of lackeys go > kill people. > You can’t have it both ways.

Sure I can… after all, what did W do before 9/11? *Less* than Clinton. Way less. One week before 9/11, W says "Iraq, Macedonia, very troubling…"… he couldn’t be given a clue. Bush reaped the benefit of 9/11… and completely, thoroughly squandered it. Read Clarke. __ Steve .

Response:

> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11?

It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part of a year for a new administration to get set-up. See ya, John

Response:

> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11? > It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his > cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part > of a year for a new administration to get set-up.

Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? Why the Bush foot dragging? Did he not see the danger? He was certainly *told* of the danger. "In January 2001, with the Florida fiasco behind us, I briefed each of my old friends and associates from the first Bush administration, Condi Rice, Steve Hadley, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. My message was stark: al Qaeda is at war with us, it is a highly capable organization, probably with sleeper cells in the U.S, and it is clearly planning a major series of atttacks against us; we must act decisively and quickly, deciding on the issues prepared after the attack on the Cole, going on the offensive." Clarke, pg 227. __ Steve .

Response:

mighty George is the one sucking face with the Saudi’s. It was a fraternity of Saudi who flew into the trade center. It was Bush makin deals on behalf of Unocal in Texas when he was governor. These guys all play hockey for various corporate donors. Sometimes they share donors and sometimes they play on opposite sides of the ice, it depends on what’s convenient. I don’t think Clinton was, ummm principled with regard to campaign favors (actually you could say he WAS principled – I mean he did his his job for those who paid him) but I think Bush is 10 times worse and far more dangerous because he "believes" rather than "thinks." And you can’t say that Bill killed more US soldiers in stupid wars than Bush. Bush wins hands down there. Suppose you look it this as power plays by varioius global companies and various families. I mean this literally. The Bush and Saudi Royal family have been working together for ages. Oil is almost but not quite thicker then blood. We will never get binLaden while Bush is president because we need the oil more than we need Osama and Osama serves as a useful propaganda rallying flag. Bush get’s what he needs, the Saudi’s get what they want. Also don’t forget how much of the US they actually own and how much we are in debt to them. And especially don’t forget how much the neo cons were praying for a disaster of this sort so that they could instigate theor plan to take over the world by "benevolent" force and install puppet democracies everywhere. As to Clinton and our Lady of Walmart. In bed with the Chinese since the first $300,000 campaign contribution. It really galls me that he sold himself so cheaply.

Response:

> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack?

Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that the foot dragging had been on going. > Why the Bush foot dragging?

Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time. See ya, John

Response:

> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? > Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have > called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, > but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s > admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that > the foot dragging had been on going.

"As in the case of Khobar and the East African embassy bombings, the FBI sent out a large team to collect evidence and interrogate witnesses. Ever the hands-on guy, John O’Neill led the team. He ran right into the US Ambassador I would least like to deal with under those circumstances, Barbara Bodine. O’Neill could charm a corpse, but he could not find a modus vivendi with the US Ambassador to Yemen. The Yemeni government also dragged its feet in the investigation, leading to President Clinton’s becoming personally involved. The US government left the Yemenis in no doubt about the two alternative paths that Yemeni-American relations could take. Meanwhile in Washingtone neither CIA nor FBI would state the obvious: al Qaeda did it. We knew there was a large al Qaeda cell in Yemen. There was also a large cell of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, but that group had now announced its complete merger into al Qaeda, so what difference did it make which group did the attack? Lisa Gordeon-Hagerty, Paul Kurtz, and Roger Cressey had worked around-the-clock pieceing together the evidence and had made a very credible case against al Qaeda. CIA would agree only months later." > Why the Bush foot dragging? > Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and > getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some > time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting > Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time.

The problem was that the intel was ‘not made here’… it was tainted by being a product of the Clinton admin. Therefore, time had to pass, even though the plan would eventually be approved almost verbatim. Both Tenet and Clarke, pleading to loose the dogs against al Qaeda…. Bush saying "Iraq, Macedonia… very troublesome right now". Let History judge. __ Steve .

Response:

Leave a Comment

I should NOT receive Social Security benefits

Question:

Social Security is a national pension plan that was quickly subverted, later revised again and again, into a system that takes your money and redistributes it in an unfair progressive manner, so those who contribute more, get less proportionally. The new Republican plan will make it even more unfair. Worst of all, this is a system where wage earners alone support a welfare and disability program that should be funded by general taxation. Corporations and rich coupon-clippers pay nothing to guarantee SSI, Medicare, or minimum Social Security payments. When will we start to march for real issues like this? www.socialsecurityplan.org

Response:

It is better to save the program now than do it later, when it will be much more painful. The smarter as well as more moral in the Dim Party would take over the Social Security issue, which they and their dependent electorate would own, on essentially their terms, and get as much tax increases as possible, the "best" deal they could get to save the program. Then (ironically, by giving away tax increases on Social Security first), they would be ready to work with the GOP on the much bigger and much worse Medicare and Medicaid. (Do they want to "get rid of profit" to save costs, even though a forced change to all-public medicine "at cost" would mean a 20-25+ year lost-profits compensation cost up front, unless the Dims were not only low-life thieves, but wanted to trash the Constitution even more than they enjoy doing routinely now?)

Response:

You try to avoid auto accidents, and there are still many who have never had one. Social Security is not insurance. In fact, its still-primary of its many welfare functions, which is often the only function discussed, preventing poverty among the elderly, if viewed intelligently and dispassionately, should be addressed directly and honestly as an old-age program. The onset of old age now is 77 years. The equivalent of age 65 in 1940, which was an arbitrary figure even then, is obsolete now, and has no credibility as a claim by resentful losers who resist modernization, now is age 72 or 73. Raising the retirement age to only age 70 is still generous and offers to pay people more than that to which they could ever honestly be claimed to deserve.

Response:

Blah blah blah lie lie lie lie….

Response:

I hope you realize that by cutting out who you were responding to, none of us knows who this message is meant to be a reply to.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve been consistently correct, your false statements and occasional > BRAYing to the contrary and even here, not correctly, notwithstanding.

Response:

> It’s not insurance. You’re given the payments when you get old, which > you cannot avoid (even if some try to avoid or postpone it, sometimes > in silly ways).

Interesting point. If you are "forced" to buy insurance, is it insurance, or a tax. Even in the case of auto insurance, where the State "requires" you to have insurance on your car, are they "forcing" you to have insurance? Because it seems to me that even when the State says you "must" have auto insurance when you operate your car, there are some who do not comply. On the other hand, you have no choice but to comply when it comes to Social Security, if you are employed by someone.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > If the law were to read "income from all sources", and there were > > a cutoff at some reasonable gross figure, that would get the job > done. > Not likely to happen. First because we vote, and second becuase the > powers > to be, "think" we need all the help we can get. and thirdly because > there > are wa whole lot of people who are not seniors who agree that we need > all > the help we can get….part of the misinformation they are fed by the > media > I guess. > There will be more retirees relative to taxpayers in the years to > come. There will be a desire for tax increases, not only cost > reductions (though the latter is what should be heavily favored). This > may involve changes to the federal income tax (as well as higher income > taxes, if we play the scummy "general revenue" game) as well as to the > payroll tax. For example, in the case of the payroll tax, all employee > compensation should be taxable, which includes stock options, and which > also — note — includes the value of employee benefits in addition to > formal wages. This means, yes, employer-provided health insurance as > well as other benefits are part of compensation and should become > taxable. (Is this what the greedy geezers and geezers-to-be are > anticipating?)

Taxing stock options does not seem fair at all, regardless of your ideological bias. For example, my wife has a small stock option in a company that she worked for, but it will never be exercized simply because the price to buy the stock is higher than the current stock is worth. And you want to tax her for a benefit that she will never use? Besides, let us for the sake of discussion say that you tax the stock option are part of income, then by definition, when I excercize such an option, are you proposing an additional tax on the "gain"? And why should all employee benefits be subject to taxation. After all, a large number of people never get the benefit of those offerings. I think of something like health insurance. I almost never made us of my healthy insurance during my working career, and you want to tax me, for a "benefit" that I have never used, and never did use? What percentage of the working population does not take advanatage of the healthcare insurnace provided to them, and what percentage would end up paying more in taxes then what they use in their healthcare benefit. And what about those companies that provide retirement benefits…do you want to tax that also, as the benefits are accrued? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

If anyone out there wants to pay in, along with their employer, more than $100,000 over their lifetime of working, and they don’t want any of that money back, they can send the payment every month to their favorite charity. This nonsense about insurance is a smokescreen. The government wants to take your money, pay you back less than you paid, and then convince you that they are moral and ethical. Social Security has one of the worst returns on investment of any country, because we march for everything but what’s important. Travel through the trailer parks and wave to the folks living on Social Security, then ask what they think. Then, you will find it harder to be so aloof, arrogant and disconnected from the real world. www.socialsecurityplan.org

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Spoken like a true idiot! >Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a >pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and >that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security >always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left >notwithstanding as usual. >Social Security to some extent and other kinds of welfare, even more, >has been the equivalent of fire "insurance" that will offer people new >homes and even rewards people for risky lifestyle choices.

Unfortunatelyt, while Simpson is usually WRONG on everything he says, he happens to be right on this issue, or at least HALF of it. If you access the Social Security Web site, you get a complete history of Social Security which outlines its development from various plans from a variety of sources over time. As such, its development really reflects the changing attitudes and needs of people as society became more complex from both a social and technological point. But I digress. Social Security termed itself ‘Social Insurance" at its onset, as it grew out of that concept, in vogue, at the time. However, names can be deceiving, as Simpson attempts to point out. A better description would be to define something by how it behaves. Simpson points out how insurance is supposed to behave, indemnifying someone against some physical risk, and since Social Security does NOT behave in that manner, should not properly be termed insurance. Adherents for defining it as insurance claim the indemnification is against the risk of poverty in old age, however, that is very broad based, and not a specific physical risk, as would be required by insurance. Under that broadening of the definition, EVERY retirement plan could be defined as insurance, which they clearly are NOT. Simpson, however, continues his rant about Social Security being welfare, and it you review the article, this too is discussed, and we clearly see that Simpson’s erroneous beliefs notwithstanding, Social Security can hardly be termed welfare. A fundamental difference between welfare and Social Security is that welfare is funded from the tax levy and recipients do not contribute to a specific fund from which they draw. Add to that eligibility requirements and you have major distinctions between welfare and Social Security, or Social Insurance, if you prefer to use the misnomer. Alan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > In article >Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a >pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and >that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security >always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left >notwithstanding as usual. > Social security is a great insurance program that is there in the > event of disability and loss of a wage earner.

Social Security is NOT an insurance program, any more than any other pension plan is an insurance program. Alan

Response:

> > If the law were to read "income from all sources", and there were > a cutoff at some reasonable gross figure, that would get the job

done. > Not likely to happen. First because we vote, and second becuase the powers > to be, "think" we need all the help we can get. and thirdly because there > are wa whole lot of people who are not seniors who agree that we need all > the help we can get….part of the misinformation they are fed by the media > I guess.

There will be more retirees relative to taxpayers in the years to come. There will be a desire for tax increases, not only cost reductions (though the latter is what should be heavily favored). This may involve changes to the federal income tax (as well as higher income taxes, if we play the scummy "general revenue" game) as well as to the payroll tax. For example, in the case of the payroll tax, all employee compensation should be taxable, which includes stock options, and which also — note — includes the value of employee benefits in addition to formal wages. This means, yes, employer-provided health insurance as well as other benefits are part of compensation and should become taxable. (Is this what the greedy geezers and geezers-to-be are anticipating?) Taxing dividends is legitimate for personal income taxes as long as they are made fully deductible business expenses. It’s an interesting thought about ending the tax exemption for government bonds. By being tax exempt, they are offered at lower rates, which means governments can "cheat" in order to lower their borrowing costs. Making bond income taxable would mean the rates would have to be much higher, which actually is a good thing: it discourages excessive and frivolous borrowing by all governments and it forces them to compete fairly with the private sector when they do borrow. As to what other taxes will be added to the income tax, there’s always the shifting game that can be done with the estate tax, ending the estate tax and re-defining inheritances as income for taxation purposes, and the class warriors (even those too dumb to understand that their own institutions such as unions are holders of equities) would impose things such as an equity turnover or equity transfer tax as new taxes rather than broad-based consumption taxes, and so on. An interesting sidelight to disability and other unfortunate events would be something the more outrageous pro-deadbeat Dims who held out against bankruptcy (and bankruptcy abuse) reform might do — insist on some kind of "disability" payment for those who were encumbered with bankruptcy and had resulting financial difficulties, as well as those who wanted bankruptcy and then "needed" new financial "disability" payments to repay what they owe, which they previously were able to, and expected to, avoid. (No, it wouldn’t pass — too many halfway-sane Dims would join the GOP against it, but it’s an amusing thought experiment.)

Response:

I’ve been consistently correct, your false statements and occasional BRAYing to the contrary and even here, not correctly, notwithstanding.

Response:

It’s not insurance. You’re given the payments when you get old, which you cannot avoid (even if some try to avoid or postpone it, sometimes in silly ways). What it does do, which most welfare programs do not, is involve not only the poor. Smarter lefties want universality not necessarily because so many of them are collectivists and radical egalitarians, but because they know that most people have weak human nature and when enjoying the benefits, may become hooked, even dependent, upon them (a type of moral hazard). The best way for lefties to get support for a program is to make it universal, or failing that, make it something that many taxpayers would find attractive, that they would resent not benefiting from themselves, and it’s then an easy step "forward" to make them beneficiaries as well. For example, the ideal "pincer" strategy for incrementalism toward getting Medicare for all citizens (or in the Democrats’ case, non-citizens; they vote Democratic, too) is an age-related-dependent "pincer" of including children, next, as well as the elderly, under Medicare. From there it’s a simple matter of getting many taxpayers, who have trouble meeting their medical expenses themselves, to be convinced to want to benefit from Medicare, too. (A separate, and in its own way interesting, incrementalist strategy is the "big gulp" of having Medicare absorb Medicaid. Popular desire for making all people beneficiaries of Medicare could then be increased by having large businesses end their own private retiree health care benefits, which make no sense, anyway, to do for people not working for those businesses.) Reducing the overgrowth of benefits as some propose and Bush is considering is long overdue but is resisted and shows the great extent to which people are so hooked on this welfare program, Social Security, that they are unrealistic as well as have an immature attitude toward it. For this reason, the fears among some extreme leftists that this will be the beginning of the end of universality and people will opt out of the program that are even more badly mistreated by the program than already (the program is very distributionist, heavily in favor of low-income, low-tax-paying people, who have the money of others taken and given to them far in excess of what they have paid in Social Security taxes, over their retirements.) First of all, they cannot opt out without federal government acquiescence and a change in legislation. Second, even in the US culture, superior to that of Europe when it comes to providing for one’s own retirement, there are many careless or otherwise failed people who will not be able to finance their own retirements, as the culture says they should. Hence, this program is not going away and participation in it will continue to be "mandatorily volunteered." In a particularly severe financial future there is nothing wrong with ending Social Security, give to people a lump sum at the normal retirement age corresponding to all their tax payments with compounded interest at a rate low enough to correspond to being provided by the federal government (very low risk), wishing them well, and having those elderly who end up being poor apply for the 1960s-onward special "targeted" welfare instead. We are not going to do this (nor will we expand Social Security into a guaranteed minimum income for all, not only the elderly, with "family allowance" payments for children; we cannot afford this), but it is perfectly legitimate to constrain costs, which will be necessary in the future, and one legitimate place to do this is in the over-growth of benefits beyond the change in the cost of living. Bush has guts and also has the facts as well as justice on his side, no matter what the leftist liars say. (An additional change long needed is raising the retirement age into the seventies, which the most childish and unrealistic in this country also reject and resent the most.)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article >>Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a >>pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and >>that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security >>always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left >>notwithstanding as usual. > Social security is a great insurance program that is there in the > event of disability and loss of a wage earner. > Social Security is NOT an insurance program, any more than any other > pension plan is an insurance program. > Alan

We were aged 3 – 14 when we started collecting. They cut off our pensions a 22. How about that? — http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1351244.htm http://sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/04/29/national/a130837D16.DTL http://tinyurl.com/cf2u5 | Society’s Disasterous Decisions http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_index.html

Response:

It’s not just simply a welfare system that Bush is proposing. It’s a welfare system that’s paid for by the working class. Bush’s idea of utopia is for the working class to pay for welfare costs while people like him who were born rich lay back and collect tax free dividends, for instance.

Response:

Spoken like a true idiot! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a >pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and >that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security >always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left >notwithstanding as usual. >Social Security to some extent and other kinds of welfare, even more, >has been the equivalent of fire "insurance" that will offer people new >homes and even rewards people for risky lifestyle choices.

Response:

> Try looking at your Social Security payments as though they’ve been > insurance premiums, like insurance on your car, or fire insurance on your > home. Insurance distributes the risk across many premium-payers, and NONE > OF THEM WANTS TO COLLECT!!! Health insurance is a fine comparison. If a > retiree is financially and physically healthy, he gets neither SS$$ nor > heart surgery. If he needs either, it’s there for him. Social Security > should be insuring us against future financial problems – and we should > never want to qualify for it, any more than we would want to qualify for a > bypass.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Auto/Life insurance is indeed what I call a reverse bet. But the odds are that you will get into an auto accident some time in your life, and you certainly will die someday. Health insurance on the other hand is something that does not require you to have a serious problem to take advantage of. All it takes is some minor event, like a cold to make use of, or some minor emergency. But the problem with health issues, is not the minor medical needs you or I may have, but the major needs you and I may have. In that sense it is a reverse bet, i.e. we are betting we will need that care, and of course the policy makers and those who pay the bills are hoping we never have a need for that major need. Of course, if you are like me, who has never had any major medical problems, until my heart attack, up to then I rarely had to use the system. Of course having said that, had I died from one of my heart attacks, before seeking medical attention, I would have saved the system a whole lot of money. > Financially-comfortable retirees generally enjoy PASSIVE income from real > estate, equities, or other investments, which does not count against SS$$. > Implementation of this idea requires the changing of only a few words in > the law. If the law were to read "income from all sources", and there were > a cutoff at some reasonable gross figure, that would get the job done. > There will certainly be cheats – someone making a bit over the trigger > point will shift some income to another person, etc. etc. But overall, > cost of funding the system will be reduced, and the system will operate > more in line with its original purpose, as a safety net.

Not likely to happen. First because we vote, and second becuase the powers to be, "think" we need all the help we can get. and thirdly because there are wa whole lot of people who are not seniors who agree that we need all the help we can get….part of the misinformation they are fed by the media I guess.

Response:

Even Slack Walleye knew and admitted that Social Security could not handle the onslaught of baby boomers retiring. Clinton proposed fixing Social Security in ‘98: http://tinyurl.com/66fhj

Response:

>Financially-comfortable retirees generally enjoy PASSIVE income from real >estate, equities, or other investments, which does not count against SS$$. >Implementation of this idea requires the changing of only a few words in the >law. If the law were to read "income from all sources", and there were a

What you want to do is turn Social Security into a welfare program. That dog doesn’t hunt. Veterans, and Americans in general, should not be penalized for putting money aside in investments and other assets to supplement Social Security retirement income when that day arrives. SSA was NEVER designed as a sole retirement plan, it was meant to help supplement your pensions, investment income, etc. What you are proposing is nothing but a welfare system, and that dog doesn’t hunt. Rodger

Response:

You pay 6.2% of your wages and so does your employer for an insurance policy in case you become poor? I have read some stupid comments on this board before, but this is the lamest altrustic drivel yet. www.socialsecurityplan.org

Response:

Hey USMC Wannabe……. still got your dick in the dirt???

Response:

> You pay 6.2% of your wages and so does your employer for an insurance > policy in case you become poor? > I have read some stupid comments on this board before, but this is the > lamest altrustic drivel yet. > www.socialsecurityplan.org

I would prefer the employer give me that 6.2% and I would put it in my own retirement fund.

Response:

Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left notwithstanding as usual. Social Security to some extent and other kinds of welfare, even more, has been the equivalent of fire "insurance" that will offer people new homes and even rewards people for risky lifestyle choices.

Response:

In article > Social security has never been an insurance program. Insurance is a > pooling of risks and costs for events one does not want to happen and > that one avoids. One cannot avoid growing older. Social Security > always has been a welfare program, the usual lies of the Left > notwithstanding as usual.

Social security is a great insurance program that is there in the event of disability and loss of a wage earner. — http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1351244.htm http:// www.jerseygop.com/RepublicanBabes38.html http://tinyurl.com/cf2u5 http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/9278.rm | Societies Disasterous Decisions http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_index.html

Response:

Try looking at your Social Security payments as though they’ve been insurance premiums, like insurance on your car, or fire insurance on your home. Insurance distributes the risk across many premium-payers, and NONE OF THEM WANTS TO COLLECT!!! Health insurance is a fine comparison. If a retiree is financially and physically healthy, he gets neither SS$$ nor heart surgery. If he needs either, it’s there for him. Social Security should be insuring us against future financial problems – and we should never want to qualify for it, any more than we would want to qualify for a bypass. Financially-comfortable retirees generally enjoy PASSIVE income from real estate, equities, or other investments, which does not count against SS$$. Implementation of this idea requires the changing of only a few words in the law. If the law were to read "income from all sources", and there were a cutoff at some reasonable gross figure, that would get the job done. There will certainly be cheats – someone making a bit over the trigger point will shift some income to another person, etc. etc. But overall, cost of funding the system will be reduced, and the system will operate more in line with its original purpose, as a safety net. Surely I’m not the first person to think of this — somewhere there must be an advocacy group. Ike E1>O5 USMC/ret

Response:

Leave a Comment

OT: Reports Cite No Abuse of Schiavo

Question:

Reports Cite No Abuse of Schiavo By Maya Bell Orlando Sentinel ORLANDO

Leave a Comment

O.T. Social Security Trustees New Report

Question:

- The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 – a year earlier than previously estimated – the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020. The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html See ya, John

Response:

The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund". It is going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the working people at that time can support the retirees. Why don’t people understand that? Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food, clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT? Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to business. Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and services. It will stimulate the economy. But it won’t help if we don’t start pretty soon. The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.

Response:

>The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years >is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund".

Of course it does — the trust fund exists to cover the difference between incoming and outgoing SS funds during the big baby boom bubble of the next few decades. >It is >going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the >working people at that time can support the retirees.

As explained above, the trust fund that’s been accumutlated (via bigger SS deduction over that past couple of decades) is designed to take care of the difference between anticipated incoming and outgoing SS funds. >Why don’t people >understand that?

Both the contents of the trust fund AND the ongoing income to SS are part of what can be drawn upon to make payments to recipients — the trust fund is comprised of government securities purchased with incoming SS funds beyond what has been required to make payments to current recipients and was intended to be drawn down during an anticipated period when there will be less coming in than going out. It was all designed-in by the late Sen. Moynihan and his colleagues during the last round of SS reform. Further such revisions to system may be necessary, but a wholesale overhaul of SS and the abandonment of its founding principles are not even close to necessary or even desirable — the system is in better overall condition than ever. >Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) >away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food,

There is no paper money in the social security trust fund — there are securities guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If those are not dependable, then we have a whole lot more to worry about than Social Security, because we will be in a full-blown, 1930s-style depression long before SS tanks! >clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. >Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. >WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?

It’s obvious the deficiency in understanding is yours, Doug — do you really think the government prints up worthless paper currency and stuffs it into a shoe box marked "Social Security Trust Fund?" >Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock >market.

That worked out real well for my 401K — no thanks, I’ll take the same kind of U.S. government securities that overseas investors are so fond of! The program is called "Social *Security*," not "Retirement Roulette." Those who want to invest their retirement savings already have tax-deferred options, why mix risk up with an insurance program that everyone benefits from? >It will help the economy by making more capital available to >business. Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and >services.

There is nothing to prevent "business" from investing all that stock sale income in Slovakia, Indonesia, China, or Equatorial Guinea — there is absolutely zero assurance that a single American job, good, or service will result from more cash flow into Wall Street. The only ones who are guaranteed to benefit are the securities trading industry with their double- digit commission rates — ] in contrast, Social Security has an administrative overhead of about two percent. >It will stimulate the economy.

Yeah, just like the recent round of tax cuts — completely eaten up by increases in state and local tax, not the mention the cost of energy. The economy is still stuck in neutral — improving, but at a glacial pace after years of distress. >But it won’t help if we don’t >start pretty soon.

Even the adminstration admits that their hokey scheme does nothing to remedy the relatively minor SS shortfall predicted for about 35 years from now — it’s major impact would be another mammoth increase in our already-huge national debt. How the heck is that going to "help" anything or anyone who’s not in the securities industry? >The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.

Including me, sonny — and you better demonstrate one heckuva lot more in the way of understanding before I’ll be convinced that we have to effectively destroy the SS system to "help" it! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 >The Grand Pyramid Scheme. I have to say, it’s the longest running one I can >think of right now. Just like all pyramid schemes, the tail-enders are >gonna get screwed. I doubt I’ll be around to see it though.

With a few minor revisions, it will go on forever — because it’s not a "pyramid scheme," it’s an insurance program that’s in better overall financial shape than most insurance companies! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041

Bullshit. It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. If you accept this worst-case scenario, one that historically doesn’t happen, then in 2041 the Social Security trust fund will be empty, but the Social Security system will still be able to pay out at least 75 percent of then-current obligations with the then-incoming FICA taxes collected.

Response:

> Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock > market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to > business.

It will create another stock market bubble and do nothing but enrich the folks on Wall Street.

Response:

> > The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme.

It isn’t.

Response:

> >> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever

Amen.

Response:

Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever > Amen.

What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than that? See ya, John

Response:

> >> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever > Amen.

Timepixdc, I have a problem with you leaving my name as an attribution to something that I didn`t write. Some would call that misleading or dishonest. Please don`t do it any more. See ya, John

Response:

> > The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme. > It isn’t.

Timepixdc, I have a problem with you leaving my name as an attribution to something that I didn`t write. Some would call that misleading or dishonest. Please don`t do it any more. See ya, John

Response:

> It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. If you > accept this worst-case scenario, one that historically doesn’t happen, > then in 2041 the Social Security trust fund will be empty, but the > Social Security system will still be able to pay out at least 75 percent > of then-current obligations with the then-incoming FICA taxes collected.

The Social Security Trustees are a bipartisan, read DEMOCRATS as well as Republicans. They agreed unanomously in the report. If you don`t like it, take it up with the Trustees that are responsible for the SS Program. See ya, John

Response:

> >> With a few minor revisions, >> it will go on forever > Amen. > What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, > overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than > that?

Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits.

Response:

> > It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. > The Social Security Trustees are a bipartisan, read DEMOCRATS as well as > Republicans.

Make that Democrat, singular. There are three trustees form the cabinet, the Treasury Secretary, the Health and Human Services Secretary and the Labor Secretary. Then there are two "independent" trustees, Republican Thomas R. Saving and Democrat John L. Palmer. So if you think that a 4 to 1 Republican to Democratic tilt is "bipartisan" in the traditional sense then you’re an idiot. Not to mention the fact that the two "independent" trustees didn’t say that Social Security was going to "go broke."

Response:

>> >> With a few minor revisions, > >> it will go on forever > > Amen. > What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, > overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than > that? > Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their > incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits.

Don`t look now but, that isn`t a revision and does nothing to save a system that the trustees say will go broke as currently designed. See ya, John

Response:

> >> What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, >> overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than >> that? > Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their > incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits. > Don`t look now but, that isn`t a revision

Uh. Yes it is. > and does nothing to save a system > that the trustees say will go broke as currently designed.

All that would take would be a few tweaks. Let’s remove the FICA cap for a start, then how about getting rid of those idiotic tax-cuts for the rich?

Response:

> – The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 – a year > earlier than previously estimated – the trustees reported Wednesday. > Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the > elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020. > The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be > cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, > which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second > term. > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html > See ya, > John

Here’s a question: IF SS was privatized, what would happen to my money I already paid into SS?

Response:

Bruce, When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical caretakers. Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working. It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government runs it. It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees AND those who are working.. The only "solution" is to let MORE young people immigrate into this country, so we have MORE young workers, or increase the number of working young by making more babies (but that is a 25 year program, not really an option anyway). No govt program will matter much. Money in the private sector might help a little because the private sector CAN allocate it in the most efficient manner. I’m in the stock market and the money in the stock market will push my stocks up. So I have a motive. But even if I didn’t and wasn’t, I think some of the SS money going into the stock market is a good idea. It will stimulate the economy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bruce, > When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical > care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X > number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one > stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical > caretakers. Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it > will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working. > It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government > runs it. > It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees > AND those who are working.. The only "solution" is to let MORE young > people immigrate into this country, so we have MORE young workers, or > increase the number of working young by making more babies (but that is > a 25 year program, not really an option anyway). No govt program will > matter much. Money in the private sector might help a little because > the private sector CAN allocate it in the most efficient manner. > I’m in the stock market and the money in the stock market will push my > stocks up. So I have a motive. But even if I didn’t and wasn’t, I think > some of the SS money going into the stock market is a good idea. It > will stimulate the economy.

Here’s a question: IF SS was privatized, what would happen to my money I already paid into SS?

Response:

> SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government > runs it.

It wasn’t designed as a savings plan and has never been one. You’re supposed to have your own savings plan so check up on IRAs and 401Ks.

Response:

>Bruce, > When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical >care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X >number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one >stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical >caretakers.

There is more than a ledger entry, Doug — that’s point you’re missing. Real money was collected, it was used to purchase government securities and the government uses the funds to buy goods and services needed to by the military, the FBI, etc. The government must make good on those securities, with interest, and it always has — if it didn’t, the U.S. economy would collapse because foreign investors would stop buying similar securities. Iow, the SS trust fund is invested much like a very conservative insurance carrier invests premiums, and goes into the economy. >Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it >will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working.

True, but irrelevant. >It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government >runs it.

It’s not a savings plan, it’s a mandatory government- run insurance program. Your IRA and/or 401K is a savings plan, tax-deferred by law until overall income is down after retirement. >It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees >AND those who are working..

The money from SS payments goes to pay for goods and services. [lots of naivete snipped] Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years > is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund". It is > going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the > working people at that time can support the retirees. Why don’t people > understand that? Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) > away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food, > clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. > Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. > WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?

Is that a rhetorical question… ? ? ? Lots of people don’t WANT to understand it… or don’t CARE to understand it, or WANT to disagree with it… so therefore refuse to accept it. But, in response… putting "dollars away" is *saving*… if they go into a "shoe box" it is not "investing", but it IS saving. The SS system is NOT a savings system/arrangement. It’s a very unusual entitlement that taxes current personal earnings to pay past promised payments based on current poverty income levels. So more people who were paying SS tax 20 years ago were paying less people a smaller payout are now COLLECTING a larger payout from less workers. No WONDER the system is going broke…! ! ! > Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock > market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to > business.

Incidently, that’s called "investing"… when a person SAVES money (real wealth, as in CASH) and puts it into some type of instrument (pun intended) that has a chance of increasing in value, through either interest income, dividend income, or increase in market value. Later, when this *investment* (either grown or not) is drawn upon by the SS recipient… NOBODY ELSE HAD TO PAY THIS MONEY…! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It was saved by the person who NEEDS it later..! ! ! ! THIS is the concept that nobody seems to want to understand nor accept. Why hasn’t anybody done a past-performance analysis on this some portion of OUR SS in private accts (broadly diversified no-load mutual funds) starting even just 15 yrs ago… regardless of the ups and downs of the market, there would be a pile of cash available for us at *retirement* that would NOT have to be paid by working people. Some will scream… "But how would the ’shortfall’ be made up for the could have NOT pushed through legislation that allowed for EXCESS (Extra SS payed by workers) to be MOVED to NON SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS…! ! ! ! ! ! Imagine if the Govt. mandated a "Retirement Savings Program" in a mandated way, but into an IRA or 401K type plan, only way more strict… as in, no borrowing at ALL..! ! ! No early withdrawal.. for ANY reason other than what SS already allows (disability, death, etc) All these "saved" funds would be "invested" in our countrys’ economy, and help stimulate growth, jobs, etc… Certainly, there are caviats in the short run.. but once "in place" it would get the govt out of the "pension business" that it has been so bad at all these years. I personally have feelings about people receiving money, that they did not save, or *earn* themselves, for doing *nothing*. IMMHO, there is always SOMETHING a person can DO… (ie – work) to *earn* whatever *DOLE* is handed out. There is plenty of "community service" that could be allocated to those that never *saved* enough to justify their SS payments, etc…. However *small* the work or service… but that is another topic. gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and > services. It will stimulate the economy. But it won’t help if we don’t > start pretty soon. The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.

Response:

>> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme. I have to say, it’s the longest running one I can > think of right now. Just like all pyramid schemes, the tail-enders are > gonna get screwed. I doubt I’ll be around to see it though. > Buffalo Bob

Unfortunately, you AND I (I don’t know how old you are) may be around to see it screw us…. It will be *sooner* rather than later…. gtski

Response:

Leave a Comment

Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars b. the pope, for being Polish c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention d. the KGB, for abusing the people e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? >a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars >b. the pope, for being Polish >c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention >d. the KGB, for abusing the people >e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices >Stephen Kotkin points out >(http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet >Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. >After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. >Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power. >Nonsense. The USSR was an economic basket case and its collapse >was underway by 1975. >The critical flaw wasn’t central planning, it was the rampant >corruption that comes with a lack of transparency and democratic >controls. The USSR, from the beginning, was essentially an enormous >mafia cloaked behind a false facade of "communism." It fell apart >for the same reasons Enron and MAXXAM and Worldcom got in trouble. >The productive layer of any economy can only support so much >looting by the idle rich. >It seems to me the CIA’s obvious failures in the ’90s have roots >in the ’70s. The field was reporting that the USSR was a hollow >shell, with its economy in shambles, but that information conflicted >with the "evil empire" ideology and the Star Wars sales pitch. >A culture of suppressing inconvenient facts and reporting what the boss >wanted to hear was established and still reigns. >Cameron

What crap. They may not have had much of anything else, Cameron, but they shure had the biggest nukes around as well as the biggest military. Did you ever visit behind the Curtain. One thing would have been pretty clear. In addition to corruption, lots of people were in uniform. But tell me more about "democratic controls", Cameron. Your a smart fellow. Tell me what democratic control you, you personally, have over your local school district, for example. Can you imagine control the people of Harlem have when: March 2, 2005 Audit Shows Widespread Fraud in Long Island School District By BRUCE LAMBERT For eight years, top officials of an affluent Long Island school district systematically plundered taxpayer funds, illegally diverting at least $11.2 million to themselves, relatives and friends in an array of goods and services from a 65-cent bagel to a $1,800-a-night hotel suite to a mortgage on a luxury home in Florida, a new state audit says. The case in Roslyn, N.Y., presents evidence of the most extensive such fraud ever encountered, national school experts say. It has already had repercussions in districts throughout New York, where school officials and bookkeepers say they are paying closer attention to budgets and accounts, and state auditors have stepped up their scrutiny. The state audit report, entitled "Anatomy of a Scandal" and issued today by the New York State comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, describes far deeper and wider corruption than previously disclosed. It said the audit found $3 million more fraud than had been estimated last spring, when the first allegations became public. It also documents and analyzes cases of fraud beyond what school officials and the local district attorney had previously detailed. Criminal investigations have already led to grand larceny indictments of the former superintendent, the former business manager and a former clerk, all of whom have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecutors said they were reviewing the latest findings and considering further charges. But the audit also found 26 additional beneficiaries of schemes to divert money. The auditors cautioned that at least some of those beneficiaries may have been innocent recipients of largesse, but the report also hinted that the illicit benefits may have compromised district employees who might otherwise have blown the whistle. That largesse was at the expense of taxpayers in Roslyn, a district of high academic achievement with 3,300 students on Long Island’s North Shore. Officials have speculated that schemes to divert money went undetected for so long because of public satisfaction with school performance, with a 95 percent graduation rate and a healthy share of high school seniors sent off to Ivy League colleges every year. But Roslyn’s education came at a cost: School property taxes for homeowners there average $9,700 a year. In four years, the district’s tax levy rose by 50 percent, to $69 million in 2004 from $46 million in 2000. "Taxpayers are furious, and they have a right to be furious," said Mr. Hevesi at a news conference, hours before he was scheduled to make an unusual presentation of the audit to parents and other residents at the high school this evening. "We’re going to clean this up," he said. "We’re going to put the systems in to make sure this never happens again. The top two culprits in named in the audit were the former superintendent, Frank A. Tassone, who was accused of taking in ill-gotten gains totaling $2.4 million, and his former assistant superintendent for business, Pamela Gluckin, who was accused of taking $4.6 million. No item was too small or great or farfetched for the white-collar thievery, the auditors found. For example, they said, Ms. Gluckin used $935,000 to pay the mortgages on three homes. But she also charged for the flood insurance for her Hamptons house and her $989 water bill in Bellmore, as well $16,000 for pet supplies, and for jewelry, art, furniture and numerous other things. Mr. Hevesi voiced amazement at "the diversity of the schemes devised." They included personal items billed to taxpayers, illegal raises and bonuses, fraudulent salary reports to the pension system that inflated retirement payments and more than $1 million in business contracts for friends and relatives with "no record that the district received anything of value in return," the report said. It said taxpayers also paid for exotic trips to Thailand, Argentina, Morocco and Indonesia; $549,120 for food and catering, dry cleaning bills, $549,129 in illegal raises and bonuses and other benefits, a Rolex watch, cable television, $5,236 for Mr. Tassone’s Christmas cards and overtime for a clerk to prepare them, $42,000 for his parking in Manhattan, 965 personal Federal Express deliveries, computers, a supersonic Concorde flight to London, Coach brand leather goods, $19.95 for vitamins, boat insurance, artworks, rugs, a $4,000 lunch for 40 at Rockefeller Center, furniture, a pool cleaner with remote control, business contracts for friends, Sony Playstations, a $3 latte, a BMW and a Jaguar, telephones in Colorado and Pennsylvania, and an unspecified $4,500 bill at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. Bills were paid to Tiffany, Tourneau, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom’s, Home Depot and other stores for personal purchases. One startling disclosure in the state audit was that Mr. Tassone and Ms. Gluckin got the school district to pay not only for their personal credit card purchases but also more than $1 million in cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines. — and that is local, Cameron. If local government can’t be controlled, what do you think the conrol chaces are in DC? What do you control in DC? And if you actually did control DC, wouldn’t you be taking control form someone else who wants control?

Response:

> Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? > a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars > b. the pope, for being Polish > c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention > d. the KGB, for abusing the people > e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices > Stephen Kotkin points out > (http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet > Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. > After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. > Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power.

Nonsense. The USSR was an economic basket case and its collapse was underway by 1975. The critical flaw wasn’t central planning, it was the rampant corruption that comes with a lack of transparency and democratic controls. The USSR, from the beginning, was essentially an enormous mafia cloaked behind a false facade of "communism." It fell apart for the same reasons Enron and MAXXAM and Worldcom got in trouble. The productive layer of any economy can only support so much looting by the idle rich. It seems to me the CIA’s obvious failures in the ’90s have roots in the ’70s. The field was reporting that the USSR was a hollow shell, with its economy in shambles, but that information conflicted with the "evil empire" ideology and the Star Wars sales pitch. A culture of suppressing inconvenient facts and reporting what the boss wanted to hear was established and still reigns. Cameron

Response:

the system itself collpased…did not work

Response:

March 06, 2005 Oil And The Soviet Collapse Energy Iraq Peak Oil Kenneth Deffeyes, in his new book Beyond Oil, offers an intriguing take on what caused the Soviet Union to collapse. He begins with a multiple choice question: Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars b. the pope, for being Polish c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention d. the KGB, for abusing the people e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices Stephen Kotkin points out (http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. The hard currency from oil allowed the Soviets to import items that were internally in short supply, from electronics to soap. At that time, Soviet oil production was larger than Saudi production by a factor of three, but Saudi Aramco had much lower production costs. Saudi Aramco resorted to a familiar tactic: a price war. They flooded the world with oil and drove the world price of crude oil below the Soviet cost of production and transportation…[S]evere shortages of everything…developed within the Soviet bloc. [...] After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power. This account is important for two reasons. First, it reminds us that the history we learn in school is at best incomplete, at worst self-serving propaganda. Of more immediate relevance, though, is the way it illustrates the enormous geopolitical leverage that comes with control of the world’s industrial lifeblood. Some people argue that oil could not have been an important motivation for the US invasion of Iraq. After all, the argument goes, the US could always acquire Iraqi oil simply by buying it on the world market. As the Soviet story illustrates, however, this is an absurdly naive reading of the situation. There is much, much more at stake than just filling our gas tanks. Whoever controls the world’s oil – especially in years to come as world oil production falls increasingly short of the world’s needs – controls the fate of nations. http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak Kenneth S. Deffeyes With world oil production about to peak and inexorably head toward steep decline, what fuels are available to meet rising global energy demands? That question, once thought to address a fairly remote contingency, has become ever more urgent, as a spate of books has drawn increased public attention to the imminent exhaustion of the economically vital world oil reserves. Deffeyes, a geologist who was among the first to warn of the coming oil crisis, now takes the next logical step and turns his attention to the earth’s supply of potential replacement fuels. In Beyond Oil, he traces out their likely production futures, with special reference to that of oil, utilizing the same analytic tools developed by his former colleague, the pioneering petroleum-supply authority M. King Hubbert. The book includes chapters on natural gas, coal, tar sands and heavy oils, oil shale, uranium, and (although not strictly an energy resource itself) hydrogen. A concluding chapter on the overall energy picture covers the likely mix of energy sources the world can rely on for the near-term future, and the special roles that will need to be played by conservation, high-mileage diesel automobiles, nuclear power plants, and wind-generated electricity. An acknowledged expert in the field, Deffeyes brings a deeply informed, yet optimistic approach to bear on the growing debate. His main concern is not our long-term adaptation to a world beyond oil but our immediate future: "Through our inattention, we have wasted the years that we might have used to prepare for lessened oil supplies. The next ten years are critical." The world is running on empty, warns petroleum geologist Deffeyes (Hubbert’s Peak, 2001), and yet Humvees continue to roll down the assembly lines, roads to be built, and economic models to be churned out. Hubbert’s Peak refers not to an oil-implicated place along the lines of Kuwait or Teapot Dome, but to a statistical concept hatched in the 1950s by another geologist, M. King Hubbert: it posits that world oil production over time will follow the classic bell curve, the apex of which took place in the past. Tinkering with Hubbert’s math just a little, Deffeyes projects that the end of 2005 will see total oil production at 2.013 trillion barrels, adding, "Wherever the peak, the view is not good." He adds, provocatively, that Thanksgiving of that year ought to be designated World Oil Peak Day and that we use the occasion to give thanks to the years 1901 to 2004, when oil was abundant and cheap. Stopgap measures will not help, he offers: drilling the five billion barrels locked up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the Bush administration has been thirsting to do for years, will only "postpone the world decline for two or three months." What, then, is to be done? Well, Deffeyes suggests, we can always try to capitalize by buying into an oil royalty trust. More to the point, governments can develop coal and nuclear energy generators in the short term, polluting and potentially hazardous though they may be, while looking for longer-term solutions with a sense of urgency behind them. And ordinary consumers can learn to turn off lights, eat foods that don’t require tons of pesticides and shipping far distances out of season, and stop buying gas-guzzlers-or, as Deffeyes growls, departingfrom his friendly college-lecture style, "find some other way of publicizing your testosterone."A timely, compelling argument that should make owners of hybrid cars just a little bit happier, and everyone else very glum indeed. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=DJ…

Response:

Leave a Comment

Another Canadian Myth – BUSTED!

Question:

December 4, 1997 DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE by Colin Nickerson, the Boston Globe SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, tends to hide a grimmer reality." When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to follow its path. Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World Wildlife Fund – Canada. Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions before 2010. Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a quarter-century ago. Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, and more nitrogen and sulfur. "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to Canada’s." From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted waterways. "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.

Response:

A Canadian myth? I never heard this myth, must have come from your imagination… you really are obsessed with Canada, aren’t you? -snip- > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee.

So the United States is the higher polluter, the winner being Texas! I think you failed your ‘Turning a liability into an asset’ propaganda course!!

Response:

> LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.

arf! arf! arf! arf! arf! arf!

Response:

We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur.

So, the Kat Converters are working then. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble.

Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor self control? Someone made you do it? No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… Lord Valve Supreme Allied Commander, AGA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to > babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist…

Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? Freep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > > December 4, 1997 > > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > > by Colin Nickerson, > > the Boston Globe > > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > > follow its path. > > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > > before 2010. > > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > > quarter-century ago. > > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > > Canada’s." > > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > > waterways. > > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

He didn’t write anything- he cut and pasted something about Canada not being environmentally responsible. The only problem with the article is that the only people this can impress are those who know nothing about Canada to begin with. The particular myth doesn’t exist in the minds of most Canadians who are in the know. Nice try, Fart Valve, but the only people you’re gonna impress with that tripe is your loyal gaaggle of toadies. Bob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.

Lard Vulva jerks off and Sokpoo is there to lick up the leavings.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to >> babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? > Freep

ROFLMAO- if one was to consider all of the dunder-headed posts you made, I might conclude that Lard Vulva was using an epithet. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA >> > December 4, 1997 >> > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >> > by Colin Nickerson, >> > the Boston Globe >> > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >> > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >> > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. >> > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >> > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >> > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >> > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >> > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >> > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. >> > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >> > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >> > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >> > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >> > tends to hide a grimmer reality." >> > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >> > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >> > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >> > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >> > follow its path. >> > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >> > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. >> > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >> > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >> > Wildlife Fund – Canada. >> > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >> > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >> > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >> > before 2010. >> > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >> > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >> > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >> > quarter-century ago. >> > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >> > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >> > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >> > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >> > and more nitrogen and sulfur. >> > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >> > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >> > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >> > Canada’s." >> > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >> > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. >> > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >> > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >> > waterways. >> > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >> > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >by Colin Nickerson, >the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.

HEY…! ! ! Why malign maggots.. ? ?! ! Just kidding…. The leftists aren’t maggots… they’re just out of touch a little bit. It’s pretty much all over the media these days… "How is the left going to change it’s message to include more voters..??" And the Canadians, they’re just like everyone else but like to think they aren’t. While the Republican Party has become more and more *inclusive*, the Dems have not. And with total blow-hards like Ted Kennedy still controlling much of the party, they’re lost in ’60s rhetoric . . . Funny thing, how folks… voters included.. can *sometimes* know the truth regardless of what the media and politicians TELL them. The Iraq conflict… regardless of what ANYONE says, it was the right thing to do… and it happened to *cost* us less than any previous *war*… ever. (Interesting read, about D-Day June 6th, and how it was not only a military victory, at the cost of many lives, but a politically VERY necessary victory as well..) Despite what the Dems cry and whine about regarding jobs, the economy, etc..etc.. it doesn’t ring true to the voters. The economy has been growing at a nice clip for years and years… while the Dems have been telling us it hasn’t. While jobs have been lost, the housing market has been BOOMING… across the board. Zillions of folks have been buying houses. In a lot of the country you can’t get a contractor to save your life… they’re too busy. Home depot begs for *installers*… Hillary Clinton is trying, right now, to change her spots politically and position herself for the ‘08 run. She has a good advisor, Bill, to help her craft on a totally new agenda a’la "end-welfare-as-we-know-it-Bill-Clinton". Remember THAT one.. ? ? The Dems were flailing, wringing their hands, throwing themselves on the ground about how BAD it would be to change *welfare* in any way other than INCREASE the funding.. ! ! ! Familys on the street, etc,,etc,, When Clinton saw that nobody was buying the Democratic position, he simply changed over to the Republican position… and who even MENTIONS Welfare anymore.. ? ? Have the Dems admitted that Welfare, was infact, a collosal blunder that cost us billions in wasted money.. ? ? Of course not, it’s not the politically correct thing to do for ANY party/politician. Back to the war, where are all the forcasts of casualties. . .? ? ? Folks were saying there would be 10s of thousands of US military dead.. from house to house fighting and all kinds of horible stuff. They predicted months of *war* and said that Baghdad would have to be won my fighting block-to-block with huge casualties. The pundits even cited ‘gas attacks’… With all the *pundits* on BOTH sides, none (of any stature) predicted what has actually transpired. Even that worthless piece-of-shit Bill Maher claims to now be impressed with what has happened in Iraq. The freakin weasal says that the elections in Iraq have made him think "hey, maybe Bush will pull this off, and it could be the right thing to have done." Well, why didn’t he just say he was jumping on the band-wagon of "good news".. ?? I’m sure the minute things get difficult he’ll claim otherwise about his position(s)… Finally, ALL the corps in the USA are not run by Republicans… some are run by Democrats. So, where are the corps that "do the Democrat thing" and NOT ship low paying jobs overseas, go "green" with their companies, etc..etc… wait, they need to be competitive too… ? ? ? So, they do whatever is needed to stay in business, even if it means saying one thing and doing another. When everyone figures out that "national healthcare" is going to "cost" the same as private healthcare we’ll be on our way to getting it. Someone will have to pay for it… meaning "us". Either the doctors/hospitals will ‘give up’ profits, or we’ll pay in taxes, or we’ll pay in prices of goods/services. Nothing is free. Everyone can ask themselves, "Would I pay a 40% federal tax rate to have a National Health plan..? ? " Go sit in any hospital emergency room and see how many "emergencies" come in versus how many "sniffles and a headache" come in… people get a splinter and want to see a specialist. No shit. On the other hand, we HAVE a national health plan already… with a little *tweaking* it might be a ‘model’ for a comprehensive/all-inclusive one… it’s called MEDICARE/MEDICAID. Oh well… can’t leave out Social Security… Mr. Bush seems to want to shift some of the "retirement" burden where.. ? ? To the wants folks to actuall SAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR their OWN RETIREMENT.. ? ? ? Criminy..! ! ! ! Where is our FREEDOM.. ?!?!?!? Our freedom to NOT save, and still have more SS payouts than we put in..! ! ! ! When one looks at the Social Security system and objectively looks at how it works… WHEW..! ! It was a *good* idea originally, and IIRC it was a ‘temporary’ fix… as it should have been. It *fixed* a couple things that needed fixing on a short-term basis. Later, someone (a Democrat, I think) decided that the "extra" SS tax being collected should be *spent* in the general fund… thus, for a long time we’ve paid MORE INTO SS THAN IS NEEDED… the overage is taken out (and spent, not refunded) and they are claiming that SS is going Imagine if you paid into your 401k/IRA, and someone took say, 20% of it every year, then told you there wouldn’t be enough for you to retire on… ? ? WTF.. !?!?! What if you were due a fed tax ‘refund’ and they sent you a letter saying, "We kept your refund and put it in the general fund."… ? ? ? ? Rant off… … second cup of java has kicked in and there’s work to get done..! ! Anyone "need" a "mangle iron"… ? ? ? I’m trying to figure out how to get rid of this thing without throwing it out. gtski

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble. >December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >by Colin Nickerson, >the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Somebody hear something?

Response:

>LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.

you must be right… like the nazi party…

Response:

>Lord Valve >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA

You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… only in America…

Response:

> is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

OK, How about some common sense thinking, and an Eye Opener. So, the push was on for the Electric Rechargeable Car. California made it a law too. Well, if by magic, all those gas burning cars were to turn into Electric Rechargeable Cars, how the hell would their already F_cked Up Power Grid going to handle it. <Rich sings In The Good Old Brown Out Summer Time> Then, has anyone ever though about the added pollution these power plants are going pure out into the Well, the only thing that would be accomplished by this folly is a good method of transferring the pollution from one place, to another. From California to the power plant. Now, for the long one. I’m freaking tired of all the F_CKING TREE HUGGERS, blasting the CARS, for the pollution, they say, Let’s take a look some where else, BEFORE we start blaming the CARS, and this moving pollution from one place to ANOTHER. First, a little bit of a history lesson, that is NOT taught in our schools. Anyone here know, what was the major deciding *factor* that governed the way this country was developed? The Clue is looking where our Major Cities Located. They our all located long major trade routes. Water Ways, Wagon Trails, and Railroads. Each of the three has a pollution yield. Even back then when the USA was developing. Now, Let’s get back to that Panama Canal again, with this added knowledge. Why, did we build it in the first place? LOL, sorry I was a little fast with that buzzer. Well, that’s what they told us. But the main reason was to move people and trade goods from one coast to the other. It’s all about import and export. OK,…. so WHAT changed since then. Why is the Panama Canal not that important anymore. If I leave this up on the screen, she’ll delete it without saving. Well, the correct answer is, containers. Those *Container* Ships coming into our ports. Here’s how this works. England ships some containers with goods to the USA, and they come into Port Newark, let’s say. The containers for the west coast, are loaded on rail cars, and travel by rail to the west coast. That, is much faster, and cost effective than using the Panama Canal. So, again we seem to have relocated the pollution by-products produced by the transportation of goods, from one place to another. So, now comes the question, just exactly how much oil do the railroads actual consume every year!!!!!! I want a NUMBER, of how many barrels of oil per year, do the railroads in the USA, AND Canada actually consume. In comparison to what the cars actually produce each year, exactly where does the total annual pollution the railroads produce compare. Then, how do the railroads compare to the amounts of pollution produce by the electric generating power plants. You always hear about the tree huggers complaining about the pollution from cars, and the power plants. Let’s talk railroads for a bit. Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter. Now class, here comes the extra credit question. For one drop of gas, how far can you make a car move, measured in feet per drop. Record the distance, and the pollution yield. Now, let’s see if some ass hole politician can legislate a law, that changes the laws of science, and get that same car to move a farther distance THAT same car, with less pollution. Ok class, can THAT, be done, with one drop of gas. Hint – E=MC^ Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Response:

> >Lord Valve >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… > only in America…

That works exactly as intended – *every* time. LV

Response:

> That works exactly as intended – *every* time. > LV

Which does tend to make one wonder why you keep testing a circuit that you already know works, I mean, it’s about as challenging as opening the fridge door and confirming that yes, the light came on again…. BTW, that Super Reverb sounded incredibly sweet, and My God what a tight band, and what a joy to see musicians having that good a time with no egos and no bullshit onstage, just playing their hearts out. Trucks himself appears to be about twelve years old, I’m almost surprised they let him into the club. Emotional fella too, I saw him smile at one point. ;-) Crappy setup at the club though, tables left on the floor on a standing-room-only night, no aisles for people to get to the bar or can, hotter than the lawyers’ corner of Hell, the old lady and I cracked each other up by both checking for a sprinkler system at the same time. I’m amazed at what some club owners get away with, not a dive by any means, but geez, a little common sense would go a long ways.

Response:

> Let’s talk railroads for a bit. > Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter.

Anyone who’s even remotely familar with railroads and the statistics can tell you that only water transport is more efficient in terms of fuel burnt per ton-mile. Where you are at, most of the railroads are powered by electricity, not diesel, ALL the trains going in & out of Manhattan are electrically powered. Try to name one that isn’t, you can’t. — Ned Carlson Triode Electronics Chicago,IL USA www.triodeelectronics.com

Response:

> > Let’s talk railroads for a bit. > Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter. > Anyone who’s even remotely familar with railroads and the statistics > can tell you that only water transport is more efficient in > terms of fuel burnt per ton-mile. > Where you are at, most of the railroads are powered by electricity, > not diesel,

I watch the Tropicana Express http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=24496 pass by twice a week at a rail line, which was the old Lehigh Valley RR http://www.enter.net/~lvrr/ which ran engines like these http://www.lvrr.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&alb… right past my house as I grew up as a kid. Some of the largest steam locomotives ran on that line. Four to five diesel engines pulling cars of frozen orange juice on it’s way up the to the New England states. Besides the orange juice, you can not believe the amount of freight that runs on that line past my house. You name it, I’ve seen it on those rails. When the election was going on, and Kerry and the lefty’s are saying how bad the economy is. I watch the freight going by, and that tells me a different story. If the railroads are hauling freight, and the truckers are doing the same, you KNOW what shape the economy is in. The CSX Norfolk Southern bought out Conrail which held the Lehigh Valley line. Which was more a freight line to the New Jersey side of New York. than a passenger line. Those container ships that unload in Port Newark, are not dumped onto electrified lines. Those lines are mostly passenger service, not freight lines. To my knowledge, with the retirement of the GG1’s, there are no electrified locomotives in NJ that can pull the tonnage the diesel locomotives do all the time today. I’ve counted more than a 140 cars on the Tropicana with as many as six motors pulling up front. On the return trip, mostly two motors do the job. Very early Tuesday morning, I sit and watch the fully loaded Tropicana pass by, and usually Thursday morning I catch the empties on their return trip back to the orange groves. If you care to come out here, I’ll treat ya to some White Castle sliders, and we can watch the Tropicana pass by. > ALL the trains going in & out of Manhattan are > electrically powered. Try to name one that isn’t, you can’t.

BTW, the electrified line came to be because of the tunnels into NYC would fill with smoke and steam from the old coal burning locomotives. Electrified lines were mostly a passenger/tunnel thing, not fright. Freight got into NY from NJ by barge, or it was routed up north, than crossed into NY by bridge, and went back south on rail along the river into NYC. Diesel was always more practical and cost effective than electrified lines. The GG1 may have been the only exception, as locomotives go. And that was a PRR thing only. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Response:

<Rich is paying attention> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>December 4, 1997 >> DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >>by Colin Nickerson, >>the Boston Globe >> SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >>spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >>Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. >> But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >>Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >>toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >>sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >>heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >>is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. >> "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >>one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >>director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >>Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >>tends to hide a grimmer reality." >> When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >>the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >>one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >>dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >>follow its path. >> Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >>seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. >> "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >>dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >>Wildlife Fund – Canada. >> Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >>responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >>now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >>before 2010. >> Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >>agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >>species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >>quarter-century ago. >> Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >>Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >>and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >>emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >>and more nitrogen and sulfur. >> "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >>isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >>to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >>Canada’s." >> From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >>flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. >> There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >>established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >>waterways. >> "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >>is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots. > HEY…! ! ! Why malign maggots.. ? ?! ! > Just kidding…. > The leftists aren’t maggots… they’re just out of touch a little bit. > It’s pretty much all over the media these days… "How is the left > going to change it’s message to include more voters..??" > And the Canadians, they’re just like everyone else but like to think > they aren’t. > While the Republican Party has become more and more *inclusive*, the > Dems have not. And with total blow-hards like Ted Kennedy still > controlling much of the party, they’re lost in ’60s rhetoric . . . > Funny thing, how folks… voters included.. can *sometimes* know the > truth regardless of what the media and politicians TELL them. The > Iraq conflict… regardless of what ANYONE says, it was the right > thing to do… and it happened to *cost* us less than any previous > *war*… ever. (Interesting read, about D-Day June 6th, and how it > was not only a military victory, at the cost of many lives, but a > politically VERY necessary victory as well..) > Despite what the Dems cry and whine about regarding jobs, the economy, > etc..etc.. it doesn’t ring true to the voters. The economy has been > growing at a nice clip for years and years… while the Dems have been > telling us it hasn’t. While jobs have been lost, the housing market > has been BOOMING… across the board. Zillions of folks have been > buying houses. In a lot of the country you can’t get a contractor to > save your life… they’re too busy. Home depot begs for *installers*… > Hillary Clinton is trying, right now, to change her spots politically > and position herself for the ‘08 run. She has a good advisor, Bill, to > help her craft on a totally new agenda a’la > "end-welfare-as-we-know-it-Bill-Clinton". Remember THAT one.. ? ? The > Dems were flailing, wringing their hands, throwing themselves on the > ground about how BAD it would be to change *welfare* in any way other > than INCREASE the funding.. ! ! ! Familys on the street, etc,,etc,, > When Clinton saw that nobody was buying the Democratic position, he > simply changed over to the Republican position… and who even > MENTIONS Welfare anymore.. ? ? Have the Dems admitted that Welfare, > was infact, a collosal blunder that cost us billions in wasted money.. > ? ? Of course not, it’s not the politically correct thing to do for > ANY party/politician. > Back to the war, where are all the forcasts of casualties. . .? ? ? > Folks were saying there would be 10s of thousands of US military > dead.. from house to house fighting and all kinds of horible stuff. > They predicted months of *war* and said that Baghdad would have to be > won my fighting block-to-block with huge casualties. The pundits even > cited ‘gas attacks’… > With all the *pundits* on BOTH sides, none (of any stature) predicted > what has actually transpired. > Even that worthless piece-of-shit Bill Maher claims to now be > impressed with what has happened in Iraq. The freakin weasal says that > the elections in Iraq have made him think "hey, maybe Bush will pull > this off, and it could be the right thing to have done." Well, why > didn’t he just say he was jumping on the band-wagon of "good news".. > ?? I’m sure the minute things get difficult he’ll claim otherwise > about his position(s)… > Finally, ALL the corps in the USA are not run by Republicans… some > are run by Democrats. So, where are the corps that "do the Democrat > thing" and NOT ship low paying jobs overseas, go "green" with their > companies, etc..etc… wait, they need to be competitive too… ? ? ? > So, they do whatever is needed to stay in business, even if it means > saying one thing and doing another. > When everyone figures out that "national healthcare" is going to > "cost" the same as private healthcare we’ll be on our way to getting > it. Someone will have to pay for it… meaning "us". Either the > doctors/hospitals will ‘give up’ profits, or we’ll pay in taxes, or > we’ll pay in prices of goods/services. Nothing is free. > Everyone can ask themselves, "Would I pay a 40% federal tax rate to > have a National Health plan..? ? " Go sit in any hospital emergency > room and see how many "emergencies" come in versus how many "sniffles > and a headache" come in… people get a splinter and want to see a > specialist. No shit. > On the other hand, we HAVE a national health plan already… with a > little *tweaking* it might be a ‘model’ for a > comprehensive/all-inclusive one… it’s called MEDICARE/MEDICAID. > Oh well… can’t leave out Social Security… Mr. Bush seems to want > to shift some of the "retirement" burden where.. ? ? To the > wants folks to actuall SAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR their OWN > RETIREMENT.. ? ? ? Criminy..! ! ! ! Where is our FREEDOM.. ?!?!?!? > Our freedom to NOT save, and still have more SS payouts than we put > in..! ! ! ! > When one looks at the Social Security system and objectively looks at > how it works… WHEW..! ! It was a *good* idea originally, and IIRC > it was a ‘temporary’ fix… as it should have been. It *fixed* a > couple things that needed fixing on a short-term basis. Later, > someone (a Democrat, I think) decided that the "extra" SS tax being > collected should be *spent* in the general fund… thus, for a long > time we’ve paid MORE INTO SS THAN IS NEEDED… the overage is taken > out (and spent, not refunded) and they are claiming that SS is going > Imagine if you paid into your 401k/IRA, and someone took say, 20% of > it every year, then told you there wouldn’t be enough for you to > retire on… ? ? WTF.. !?!?! What if you were due a fed tax > ‘refund’ and they sent you a letter saying, "We kept your refund and > put it in the general fund."… ? ? ? ? > Rant off… > … second cup of java has kicked in and there’s work to get done..! ! > Anyone "need" a "mangle iron"… ? ? ? I’m trying to figure out how > to get rid of this thing without throwing it out. > > gtski

<thinking> It needs a little … read more »

Response:

> > We don’t want to listen to that bull shit

here. Go somewhere else to babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are

facts. Oh I get it. If some info is written by anyone for the Boston Globe, they are FACTS. And if Fart Valve sez they is the FACTS, then garly gee, no one, absolutely no one is allowed to question them FACTS! (Unfortunately, Fart Valve is so self-deluded, he wouldn’t know a FACT if one bit him on the ass). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA message > > December 4, 1997 > > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > > by Colin Nickerson, > > the Boston Globe > > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy

mountains, dense forests, and > > spectacular headlands rearing from the

Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > > But amid this splendor twists the maggot

of environmental corruption. > > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the

island’s only city, is the worst > > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary

packed with 700,000 tons of > > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic

chemicals. The lethal brew > > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not

at all the sort of thing > > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > > director of the Sierra Club of Canada.

"Except that ‘good green > > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering

reputation, unfortunately, > > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > > When it comes to guarding the environment,

Canada knows how to talk > > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De

Janeiro in 1992, this country, > > one of the world’s seven leading industrial

nations, proudly pledged to > > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions

and hectored others to > > follow its path. > > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have

gone silent as the government > > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation

biologist with the World > > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > > responsible for global warming has risen 13

percent, and the country > > now is hedging on whether it will commit to

making any reductions > > before 2010. > > Similarly, the nation that pushed so

vigorously for a "biodiversity" > > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to

pass a federal endangered > > species act like the one enacted in the

United States more than a > > quarter-century ago. > > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of

the 50 American states and 10 > > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the

third-worst polluter, after Texas > > and Tennessee. Another study found that on

a per-capita basis, Canada > > emits as much carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere as the United States, > > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our

‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have

fewer people and a bigger nest > > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > > Canada’s." > > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s

important cities still > > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > > There is no Canadian equivalent of the

U.S. Clean Water Act that has > > established courts to force American cities

to scour badly polluted > > waterways. > > "There remains a 19th-century way of

thinking that all natural bounty – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.

Response:

message message > >> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit

here. Go somewhere else > to > >> babble. > > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY

THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > > THE POST? You retarded or something?

Killfile busted? Poor > > self control? Someone made you do it? > > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? > Freep > ROFLMAO- if one was to consider all of the

dunder-headed posts you > made, I might conclude that Lard Vulva was using an epithet. > Bob

Ha ha ha ha Fraidy (who’s job is to visually inspect the nongravitational toilet at NASA) just had to reassert his "esteemed" position in life yet again. What a maroon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Lord Valve > > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA in message > >> > December 4, 1997 > >> > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > >> > by Colin Nickerson, > >> > the Boston Globe > >> > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy

mountains, dense forests, > and > >> > spectacular headlands rearing from the

Atlantic’s churn, Cape > Breton > >> > Island ranks among the grandest of

Canada’s national treasures. > >> > But amid this splendor twists the

maggot of environmental > corruption. > >> > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the

island’s only city, is the > worst > >> > toxic waste dump in North America, a

series of "tar" lagoons, > >> > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal

estuary packed with 700,000 > tons of > >> > heavy metals, coal waste, and

carcinogenic chemicals. The > lethal brew > >> > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > >> > "It’s a national disgrace, of course,

not at all the sort of > thing > >> > one expects from Canada the good and

green," said Elizabeth May, > >> > director of the Sierra Club of Canada.

"Except that ‘good green > >> > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, > unfortunately, > >> > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > >> > When it comes to guarding the

environment, Canada knows how to > talk > >> > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De

Janeiro in 1992, this > country, > >> > one of the world’s seven leading

industrial nations, proudly > pledged to > >> > dramatically slash greenhouse gas

emissions and hectored others > to > >> > follow its path. > >> > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the > government > >> > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > >> > "The country’s actual accomplishments

have fallen short of our > >> > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation

biologist with the World – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > >> > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > >> > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the > country > >> > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any > reductions > >> > before 2010. > >> > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a > "biodiversity" > >> > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal > endangered > >> > species act like the one enacted in the

United States more than > a > >> > quarter-century ago. > >> > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of

the 50 American states > and 10 > >> > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the

third-worst polluter, after > Texas > >> > and Tennessee. Another study found that

on a per-capita basis, > Canada > >> > emits as much carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere as the United > States, > >> > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > >> > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our

‘dirty’ neighbor, our > record > >> > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a > bigger nest > >> > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law

is overall superior to > >> > Canada’s." > >> > From Halifax to Victoria, many of

Canada’s important cities > still > >> > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > >> > There is no Canadian equivalent of the

U.S. Clean Water Act > that has > >> > established courts to force American

cities to scour badly > polluted > >> > waterways. > >> > "There remains a 19th-century way of

thinking that all natural > bounty > >> > is meant for us to plunder, not

preserve," said Ewins. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> > That works exactly as intended – *every* time. > LV > Which does tend to make one wonder why you keep testing a circuit that you > already know works, I mean, it’s about as challenging as opening the fridge > door and confirming that yes, the light came on again….

Yeah, but…how do you know it went *off*, eh? Huh? > BTW, that Super Reverb sounded incredibly sweet, and My God what a tight > band, and what a joy to see musicians having that good a time with no egos > and no bullshit onstage, just playing their hearts out.

You got DTB religion. Only the tonedeaf fail to be converted. > Trucks himself > appears to be about twelve years old, I’m almost surprised they let him into > the club.

He’s 24 or 25. > Emotional fella too, I saw him smile at one point. ;-)

Hey, Coltrane didn’t jump all over the stage wearing Spandex, either. All the best guitarists in the world were sit-down players. Chet Atkins, Joe Pass, Jim Hall, etc. Hell, Segovia, too. > Crappy setup at the club though, tables left on the floor on a > standing-room-only night, no aisles for people to get to the bar or can, > hotter than the lawyers’ corner of Hell, the old lady and I cracked each > other up by both checking for a sprinkler system at the same time. I’m > amazed at what some club owners get away with, not a dive by any means, but > geez, a little common sense would go a long ways.

I’ll be seeing him at the Gothic on March 4. The Gothic’s a pretty cool room, but the acoustics suck. I prefer to listen to the house mix through headphones; the Gothic has about 1-1/2 seconds of bass reverb. Mush city. On the other side of the coin, their stage monitors are great; when I sat in with Derek last year the mix was excellent. Lord Valve Musician

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Lord Valve > >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… > only in America… >That works exactly as intended – *every* time. >LV

Your mental development obviously ended at age 12…. my problem is I keep reading your demented postings… I really should stop feeding the trolls… and that is exactly what you are, no more, and no less. You may have noticed a few talented people no longer post here, they don’t lurk, either… there’s no point to engaging in a news group with people inhabiting such small and demented minds such as yours. I guess I’ll leave as well, have fun, ‘commander’…

Response:

Leave a Comment

Franken = FLOP

Question:

Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network against Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s ratings soared. A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship WABC in New York had been setting records. In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw its ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken Factor." (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York > All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. > Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network > against > Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s > ratings > soared. > A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship > WABC > in New York had been setting records. > In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating > ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. > During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw > its > ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. > The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken > Factor." > (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05)

Can you imagine listening not only to that arrogant Socialist idiot Franken, but then having to endure that screeching bitch Garafolo as his sidekick? God, you could use her voice to strip wallpaper. When was the last time you ever saw the bi-polar she-devil actually WORK as a "comedian"? Might be because she’s not funny, she’s pathetic.

Response:

> A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship > WABC > in New York had been setting records.

Against what, or whom? Captain Oxycontin might beat other radio "blab fests", but his numbers are nowhere near miraculous. In fact, talk radio is the most over-rated red herring in American media. Why don’t you look up Howard Stern’s numbers in New York? Or anywhere else he is heard. Those are staggering.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York > All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. > Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network against > Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s ratings > soared. > A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship WABC > in New York had been setting records. > In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating > ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. > During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw its > ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. > The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken > Factor." > (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05)

Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero releases his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) gives poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies out of horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are on the run.

Response:

Overall ratings mean nothing in the radio business, which is all about the advertisers’ favor demographics — and it’s really no surprise that someone who’s been around for a decade and a half on on of the most powerful AM outlets in the country would edge out an upstart network in business for less than a year whose flagship station’s signal doesn’t reach nearly as far into the surrounding suburbs. The real surprise is that there’s a contest at all — that fact that there is should be an embarrassment to Brush Lintball and WABC. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York >All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. >Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network against >Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s ratings >soared. >A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship WABC >in New York had been setting records. >In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating >ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. >During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw its >ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. >The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken >Factor." >(From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05)

Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York > All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. > Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network > against > Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s > ratings > soared. > A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship > WABC > in New York had been setting records. > In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating > ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. > During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw > its > ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. > The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken > Factor." > (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) >Can you imagine listening not only to that arrogant Socialist idiot Franken,

Franken is a devout capitalist — some of his friends call him "Al Franken Incorporated" because of his many business ventures. >but then having to endure that screeching bitch Garafolo as his sidekick?

Garofolo is not on Franken’s show — his "sidekick" is a veteran radio journalist named Katherine Lanpher. >God, you could use her voice to strip wallpaper.

Actually, her speaking voice is quite pleasant — but of course you’ve never really heard her talk, have you? I didn’t think so….. >When was the last time you >ever saw the bi-polar she-devil actually WORK as a "comedian"?

She’s more of a character actress than a comedian, but she still does stand- up when her movie and radio commitments allow. She recently took two weeks off from her radio show to do a movie on the west coast >Might be >because she’s not funny, she’s pathetic.

How would you know, given that you obviously don’t even know who she is or what she does? Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

Response:

>Overall ratings mean nothing >in the radio business, which >is all about the advertisers’ >favor demographics —

Not entirely true…ratings are broken down into numbers that allow stations to get a rough idea of how many listeners they have at any given hour. In various market sizes, these numbers provide the basis for what they charge for commercial time. And, since that is their life blood, ratings become *very* important to them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->and >it’s really no surprise that >someone who’s been around >for a decade and a half on >on of the most powerful AM >outlets in the country would >edge out an upstart network >in business for less than a >year whose flagship station’s >signal doesn’t reach nearly >as far into the surrounding >suburbs. The real surprise >is that there’s a contest at >all — that fact that there >is should be an embarrassment >to Brush Lintball and WABC.

You’re dead on target with that statement. But let me add that ratings fluctuate up and down, all the time. That is completely normal, regardless of the competition. This is *especially* true for AM stations, and in particular, stations who are not "clear channel" (no, not the company of that name!). Many AM stations must reduce power in the evenings, based on local sunset. If you’re one of the "lucky" ones, your ratings fall off during the fall and winter months. (sunset moves earlier in the evening, which means you reduce power earlier in the day, and you lose your over-all listener count.) It would be just as interesting to see the "record ratings" figures for Rush. 1.4 and 1.2 is *not bad* in a market that size, if you’re talking total market share. I’d also like to see the AQH numbers for *both* programs. That’s the only *real* way to see how many people are listening. Finally, AM radio is not very popular, anyway. Numbers have been falling there, for years. If you look around at other AM ratings, it’s not unusual to see market shares close to the low to mid 1’s. Remember….you’re comparing the AM’s with the FM’s, and the distance is huge. Let’s look at AM’s only, within the range or coverage area’s and see what the numbers say. And, what about in similar demographics? Otherwise, you can spin ratings to say whatever you want, to serve your needs. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York >All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just hype. >Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network against >Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s ratings >soared. >A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s flagship WABC >in New York had been setting records. >In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best rating >ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. >During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, saw its >ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. >The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the O’Franken >Factor." >(From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) > Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< >-=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

Franken is a devout capitalist — some of his friends call him "Al Franken Incorporated" because of his many business ventures. >><BR><BR> And he supports our troops in Iraq by making them laugh on his USO tours to war zones. When did Limbaugh ever do that?

Response:

> http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

Looks like I nailed it- old Lard Vulva is posting even more trivial tripe cause he knows what a load of shit Bush’s new budget is. I hope you have your retirement planning in order, Lardass. You better hope that solid state amps don’t catch on and wipe out your tube business. Bob

Response:

>Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York

Shit floats.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York > All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just > hype. > Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network > against > Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s > ratings > soared. > A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s > flagship WABC > in New York had been setting records. > In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best > rating > ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. > During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, > saw its > ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. > The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the > O’Franken > Factor." > (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) > Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero releases > his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) gives > poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies out of > horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, > misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are on > the run.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York >> All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, just > hype. >> Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal network > against >> Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as Rush’s > ratings >> soared. >> A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s > flagship WABC >> in New York had been setting records. >> In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its best > rating >> ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. >> During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s WLIB, > saw its >> ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. >> The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the > O’Franken >> Factor." >> (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) > Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero releases > his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) gives > poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies out of > horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, > misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are on > the run. > Bush’s budget (which, by the way, is none of you Candian Commies’ business) > is spot on, cutting out useless garbage Demo-spend programs that help no one > other than fat-cat Socialist bureaucrats. It’s a good start, George, KEEP > CUTTING!!!!

Yeah, right- spot on if you’re rich. He’s basically given the finger to anyone who is unfortunate enough to be poor. We’ll see just how glad you voted for him you’ll be when the cuts hit home, loser. He doesn’t give fuck one about you. Bob

Response:

> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York

Lush BlowJob is still around ? Fat boy needs a couple bottles of sleeping pills and a bottle of jack to get rid of the selfcenterness he still suffers with.

Response:

> Franken is a devout > capitalist — some of his > friends call him "Al > Franken Incorporated" > because of his many > business ventures.

Franken makes money on being a Leftist, which technically, is an anti-capitalist ideal. Much like the very rich Ted Kennedy, Senator Byrd, John Effing Kerry, et al, etc., etc. There’s money to be made in America, you just have to sell what some people will buy. Franken is another turd selling the stink. With rasslin skills!

Response:

> http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

I’m still wondering what Pouttine is. Sure, gravy and taters are good but w/ cheese? Must be on to something good, that’s a drunk-at-the-fridge combo.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York > >> All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, > just > > hype. > >> Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal > network > > against > >> Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as > Rush’s > > ratings > >> soared. > >> A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s > > flagship WABC > >> in New York had been setting records. > >> In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its > best > > rating > >> ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. > >> During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s > WLIB, > > saw its > >> ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. > >> The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the > > O’Franken > >> Factor." > >> (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) > > Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero > releases > > his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) > gives > > poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies > out of > > horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, > > misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are > on > > the run. > Bush’s budget (which, by the way, is none of you Candian Commies’ > business) > is spot on, cutting out useless garbage Demo-spend programs that help > no one > other than fat-cat Socialist bureaucrats. It’s a good start, George, > KEEP > CUTTING!!!! > Yeah, right- spot on if you’re rich. He’s basically given the finger to > anyone who is unfortunate enough to be poor. We’ll see just how glad > you voted for him you’ll be when the cuts hit home, loser. He doesn’t > give fuck one about you. > Bob

I don’t expect him to, as oppsed to you work-sucking losers who think everyone owes you a free ride.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York >> >> All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, > just >> > hype. >> >> Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal > network >> > against >> >> Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as > Rush’s >> > ratings >> >> soared. >> >> A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s >> > flagship WABC >> >> in New York had been setting records. >> >> In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its > best >> > rating >> >> ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. >> >> During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s > WLIB, >> > saw its >> >> ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. >> >> The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the >> > O’Franken >> >> Factor." >> >> (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) >> > Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero > releases >> > his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) > gives >> > poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies > out of >> > horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, >> > misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are > on >> > the run. >> Bush’s budget (which, by the way, is none of you Candian Commies’ > business) >> is spot on, cutting out useless garbage Demo-spend programs that help > no one >> other than fat-cat Socialist bureaucrats. It’s a good start, George, > KEEP >> CUTTING!!!! > Yeah, right- spot on if you’re rich. He’s basically given the finger to > anyone who is unfortunate enough to be poor. We’ll see just how glad > you voted for him you’ll be when the cuts hit home, loser. He doesn’t > give fuck one about you. > Bob > I don’t expect him to, as oppsed to you work-sucking losers who think > everyone owes you a free ride.

You don’t? Why the hell did you vote for him if you don’t expect him to? Just dumb? No one owes me a free ride- I’ve never held that ideology, which is a gross stereotype of what you consider to be "leftist". Bob

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York >> >> All of this talk of Air America’s ratings success may be, well, > just >> > hype. >> >> Despite the frontal assault launched by the upstart liberal > network >> > against >> >> Rush Limbaugh in New York, AA appears to have fallen flat as > Rush’s >> > ratings >> >> soared. >> >> A recent edition of Mediaweek reported that ratings at Rush’s >> > flagship WABC >> >> in New York had been setting records. >> >> In fact the 2004 fall Arbitron ratings found that WABC had its > best >> > rating >> >> ever since 1994, making it the top AM station in the market. >> >> During the same period, Air America, which airs on New York’s > WLIB, >> > saw its >> >> ratings share drop from 1.4 to 1.2. >> >> The reason? Let’s just call the phenomenon of lower ratings "the >> > O’Franken >> >> Factor." >> >> (From the Newsmax e-mail update, 02/07/05) >> > Ha! Your timing regarding this post is spectacular. Your hero > releases >> > his completely fucked up budget that (as right wingers just love) > gives >> > poor people the finger as usual and you choose to pick the flies > out of >> > horseshit with this completely insubstantial (and as usual, >> > misleading) asswipe of a post. Looks like the mighty righties are > on >> > the run. >> Bush’s budget (which, by the way, is none of you Candian Commies’ > business) >> is spot on, cutting out useless garbage Demo-spend programs that help > no one >> other than fat-cat Socialist bureaucrats. It’s a good start, George, > KEEP >> CUTTING!!!! > Yeah, right- spot on if you’re rich. He’s basically given the finger to > anyone who is unfortunate enough to be poor. We’ll see just how glad > you voted for him you’ll be when the cuts hit home, loser. He doesn’t > give fuck one about you. > Bob > I don’t expect him to, as oppsed to you work-sucking losers who think > everyone owes you a free ride.

And how big is the fucking deficit now, asswipe?

Response:

Bush’s budget (which, by the way, is none of you Candian Commies’ business) is spot on, cutting out useless garbage Demo-spend programs that help no one other than fat-cat Socialist bureaucrats. It’s a good start, George >><BR><BR> I’m surprised to see that you’re in favor of a bigger government: Blueprint Calls for Bigger, More Powerful Government By Jim VandeHei (Washington Post) President Bush

Leave a Comment

Next page Previous page

A Simple Guide To Your Retirement

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response: