......seems to enjoy the notoriety of whistling-past graveyards.......and, he's got plenty OF them!!!! :mad:

*

"Sometimes, the bullish Bush and the bearish Bush lurk in the same argument. When Bush extols private accounts, he and his fellow privateers note that stock investments have tended, in the long run, to produce an annual return of about 7 percent and can be counted on to do so in future years as Social Security falters. But that 7 percent figure assumes that economic growth continues at its historical rate. If growth falters as drastically as Bush's Social Security actuaries project, then the rate of return on stocks should falter too. If the United States is facing a future of economic stagnation, it will drag down stocks just as much as it will social insurance.

The president needs a patsy. Bush doesn't do very well left to his own devices, if he's constrained to being merely bullish or bearish. It's when he's brutish that Bush prevails. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18009-2004Dec21.html)"

*

" The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained.

New documents released yesterday detail a series of probes by Army criminal investigators into multiple cases of threatened executions of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, as well as of thefts of currency and other private property, physical assaults, and deadly shootings of detainees at detention camps in Iraq.

In many of the newly disclosed cases, Army commanders chose noncriminal punishments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17883-2004Dec21.html) for those involved in the abuse, or the investigations were so flawed that prosecutions could not go forward, the documents show. Human rights groups said yesterday that, as a result, the penalties imposed were too light to suit the offenses."

*

" In April 2003, as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was ending, the Pentagon projected in a formal planning effort that the U.S. military occupation of the country would end this month.

Instead, December 2004 brought one of the deadliest single incidents of the war for U.S. forces. More than 80 casualties were suffered yesterday by U.S. troops, civilian contractors and Iraqi soldiers when a U.S. base near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was blasted at lunchtime.

But others were throwing up their hands. "This sure isn't playing out like I thought it would," said retired Marine Lt. Col. Jay Stout, author of a book about the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, in which he fought. He said he is no longer confident about what the U.S. strategy in Iraq should be.

"We have few choices: We can maintain the status quo while trying to build an Iraqi government that will survive, we can get the hell out now and leave them to kill themselves, or we can adopt a more brutal and repressive stance. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17892-2004Dec21.html)"

His choice? "I don't know the right answer -- I gave up guessing a few months ago."

*

All of this is starting to sound like the good ol' days!!!! :@@:

"Well, come on mothers throughout the land (http://www.countryjoe.com/),

Pack your boys off to Vietnam.

Come on fathers, don't hesitate,

Send 'em off before it's too late.

Be the first one on your block

To have your boy come home in a box."

:@@:

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
......When Bush extols private accounts, he and his fellow privateers note that stock investments have tended, in the long run, to produce an annual return of about 7 percent and can be counted on to do so in future years as Social Security falters. But that 7 percent figure assumes that economic growth continues at its historical rate.

How long does someone pay into Social Security? Roughly 45 years? Pick ANY 45 year period in the history of Social Security and show me where the stock market, with similar contributions, would have paid less than S.S.

I know this is difficult to figure out, so don't bother. It has never happened.

Bush has the lowest approval rating in history for an incumbent president in the month following an election. ROTFLMAO ... yeah, this is the kind of guy I want investing my retirement for me.

Dop

way to prove brooks wrong dop. more polls. Bush has the lowest approval rating for any president re-elected on a year where christmas falls on a saturday and the lowest approval rating of any leader in history when jupiter alligns with saturn during the winter solstice. see how evil he is!

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
sometimes, the bullish Bush and the bearish Bush lurk in the same argument. When Bush extols private accounts, he and his fellow privateers note that stock investments have tended, in the long run, to produce an annual return of about 7 percent and can be counted on to do so in future years as Social Security falters. But that 7 percent figure assumes that economic growth continues at its historical rate. If growth falters as drastically as Bush's Social Security actuaries project, then the rate of return on stocks should falter too. If the United States is facing a future of economic stagnation, it will drag down stocks just as much as it will social insurance.

Money will continue to flow to older Americans, but not come from present revenue. It will come from new funds. And where are these funds going to come from? Though it is not popular in a majority Republican Congress, We must nationalize the health care system now so that we can save money later that will be spent on ballooning costs. Otherwise, a lot of poor elderly Americans will be in real trouble.

Overall, this privatization is a disastrous decision to create an additional forced savings program that is wholly unnecessary, and will bring about vast distortions in the stock market.

Originally posted by Rolader
We must nationalize the health care system now so that we can save money later that will be spent on ballooning costs.

Doesn't government takeover decrease efficiency and cause cost increases?

Originally posted by Brooks
How long does someone pay into Social Security? Roughly 45 years? Pick ANY 45 year period in the history of Social Security and show me where the stock market, with similar contributions, would have paid less than S.S.

I know this is difficult to figure out, so don't bother. It has never happened.
That's final, huh.......and, you forgot to post the numbers to prove it??

What.......that's what they say, huh?

Or......is this another one o' those everybody knows facts?? :@@:

Originally posted by Brooks
Doesn't government takeover decrease efficiency and cause cost increases?
Yep!!

That's what they say. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Rolader
Money will continue to flow to older Americans, but not come from present revenue. It will come from new funds. And where are these funds going to come from? Though it is not popular in a majority Republican Congress, We must nationalize the health care system now so that we can save money later that will be spent on ballooning costs. Otherwise, a lot of poor elderly Americans will be in real trouble.

Overall, this privatization is a disastrous decision to create an additional forced savings program that is wholly unnecessary, and will bring about vast distortions in the stock market.
Social-security should be means-tested!

I've you've had the skill & means to make investments that cover all your retirement needs.....and, MORE......you should get-back your initial S.S.-payments, with interest......and, that's it!!!! No never-ending checks, afterwards!

Is the ...

"Pick ANY 45 year period in the history of Social Security and show me where the stock market, with similar contributions, would have paid less than S.S."

still on the table?

OK, I'll wait until we play out the means testing idea of shaman which BTW is a great idea.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush has the lowest approval rating in history for an incumbent president in the month following an election. ROTFLMAO ... yeah, this is the kind of guy I want investing my retirement for me.

Dop

Then put your money in a sock and quit taking mine. Still waiting on your link.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Is the ...

"Pick ANY 45 year period in the history of Social Security and show me where the stock market, with similar contributions, would have paid less than S.S."

still on the table?

OK, I'll wait until we play out the means testing idea of shaman which BTW is a great idea.
I figure that's the more-fair way......but, have no idea whether-or-not it's feasible (on the interest-thing).

Either way, it's not a new idea........and, others are finally giving it some consideration (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0411110359nov11,0,2748792.column?coll=chi-business-nav)!!

"After you turn 65, you would apply for the insurance," he said. Under his plan, "you can only apply if your outside income is less than $50,000. If you're above $50,000, you can't apply, because you have adequate income."

Schwab said he isn't wedded to the $50,000 figure, but said eliminating benefits at that point would save the Social Security system 15 percent of its future liabilities.

He said people who take advantage of tax-advantaged savings programs, such as IRA and Keogh accounts, and have resources to generate $50,000 in retirement income are able to surrender Social Security benefits, even though they paid into the program throughout their working lives.

"They can afford to do that," he said."

*
Personally, I think the 1%ers should consider S.S.-payments (into the program) their DUES for living in a country that's allowed them to prosper, so well, much like the TAXES they pay (http://www.responsiblewealth.org/)!!!

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Social-security should be means-tested!



Forced contributions distributed based on need? We already have welfare. If you want that, just increase welfare type payments and get rid of SSI because that's not what the intention of SSI was.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman

He said people who take advantage of tax-advantaged savings programs, such as IRA and Keogh accounts, and have resources to generate $50,000 in retirement income are able to surrender Social Security benefits, even though they paid into the program throughout their working lives.



If you and I have the same job/income and I invest in IRAs and Keoughs and you spend your money on cocaine and whores, you'll get SSI at 65 and I won't.

Wow, 14 responses here Shamman. I'm pretty sure that's a record for one of your threads - Congratulations.

Looking back, I see that you're responsible for making 33% of the replies yourself, but nonetheless, I'm still impressed.

Originally posted by Brooks
If you and I have the same job/income and I invest in IRAs and Keoughs and you spend your money on cocaine and whores, you'll get SSI at 65 and I won't.
Hell........if you're pullin'-down $50K/year, in retirement-income........and, (are) still pissed-off at those people who "spent their money on cocaine and whores".......you should be counting-your-blessings......and, get a LIFE!!!! :rolleyes:

It has been suggested to phase out SocSec and introduce a flat tax. A flat tax w/no income cap. For example singles that make 25k a year or less pay nothing; couples 50k same deal. Over 25k or 50k for couples pay 15%. Even if you make a billion; you pay 15%.
Those that need economic assistance would apply for it and those that don't need it won't get any.
I would like to see some figures in comparing the present tax system w/IRS and all the expenses from it and soc sec against a phased out old tax system, IRS and SocSec replaced by a 15% flat tax w/out caps.
Some what ifs from a think tank or an accountant or even rain man just not government generated spin drivel.

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
It has been suggested to phase out SocSec and introduce a flat tax. A flat tax w/no income cap. For example singles that make 25k a year or less pay nothing; couples 50k same deal. Over 25k or 50k for couples pay 15%. Even if you make a billion; you pay 15%.
Those that need economic assistance would apply for it and those that don't need it won't get any.
I would like to see some figures in comparing the present tax system w/IRS and all the expenses from it and soc sec against a phased out old tax system, IRS and SocSec replaced by a 15% flat tax w/out caps.
Some what ifs from a think tank or an accountant or even rain man just not government generated spin drivel.
The only problem I have (with a flat-tax) is, who's version is implemented.

When Steve Forbes ran for President......and, suggested a flat-tax.....he felt (only) direct-income (wages) should be taxed.......and, that income (from investments) shouldn't be taxed at all.

That's what the 1%ers really need; that kind of exclusion, on top of their (most recent) tax-cuts!!! ;)

I was reading an article about flat tax that the UK is considering.
the tax study by Andrei Grecu @
http://www.adamsmith.org
I wanted to know if a flat tax of 15% is applied to income yet dividends and growth on savings are exempt Need to say goodbye to estate taxes also.
How could sales tax be applied because that seems to be a catch all when it come to unreported income..IE.. illegals, dope dealers, the mob, prostitutes and in general cash paid under the table.
But you wouldn't want tax on food or other necessities needed by low or no income people.
Haven't found any details that address these issues.
Hard to find the blanket that covers all yet is fair.:@@:

It won't be 15% or anywhere near that low of a number.

The think tanks have already said it would take a minimum of 23% under some scenarios and 35% or higher under other scenarios.

You're dreaming if you think any of the top 2% elite will pay a single penny in taxes.... EVER.

Dop

Actually Dop,

If you pop on over to Rush Limbaugh website, you'll find that the top 50 percent pay 85% of the taxes. That's quite a chunk of change.

I like the flat tax idea. It's better than me doing overtime and jumping up a tax bracket and having more money taken away as a result.


About Social Security, to be honest, I'd rather have the money that goes into Social Security dumped into my 401K account. That way, I could see how much money I'd be getting when I turn 65. As it is, I may not see any of the money I've been putting into Social Security at all

:mad: .

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
Need to say goodbye to estate taxes also.
All of the conservative-concerns (about the Estate-Tax; i.e. Death Tax) are BULLSHIT (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0408-02.htm)!!!

"Harlyn Riekena worried that his success would cost him when he died. Thirty-seven years ago he quit teaching to farm and over the years bought more and more of the rich black soil here in central Iowa. Now he and his wife, Karen, own 950 gently rolling acres planted in soybeans and corn.

The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.

But in fact the Riekenas will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.

Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.

While 17 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup survey think they will owe estate taxes, in fact only the richest 2 percent of Americans do. That amounted to 49,870 Americans in 1999. And nearly half the estate tax is paid by the 3,000 or so people who each year leave taxable estates of more than $5 million.

The debate does not divide neatly among rich and poor. Since February more than 800 wealthy Americans (http://www.responsiblewealth.org/estatetax/index.html) have joined in a public appeal to keep the estate tax. They argue that repealing the tax would further enrich the wealthiest Americans and hurt struggling families. They also argue that financial success should be based on merit rather than on inheritance."

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It won't be 15% or anywhere near that low of a number.

The think tanks have already said it would take a minimum of 23% under some scenarios and 35% or higher under other scenarios.
Why do you keep offering allegations......without posting any proof of what you heard???? ;)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
If you pop on over to Rush Limbaugh website.......
Gee........whatta great, little resource for horseshit (http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles.htm).

ya shaman, and your links are pure gold

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Why do you keep offering allegations......without posting any proof of what you heard???? ;)

Are you calling me out on my allegations (your word) or simply tossing out a general question because you don't like the way I play?

Actually this one is a no-brainer ...

If we can't run the country on 15% now, what magically happens under a flat tax that allows us to run the country with 15% then? There certainly won't be more taxpayes and chances are there will be fewer taxpayers.

Most people don't need links to see the obvious.

Darth dude ... I wouldn't go near Rush's website.

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
ya shaman, and your links are pure gold
Thanks!!!!!! :)

I always thought so!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Are you calling me out on my allegations (your word) or simply tossing out a general question because you don't like the way I play?
Whoahhhhhhhhhhhh........slow-down, there, Cowboy!!!!

The think tanks have already said it would take a minimum of 23% under some scenarios and 35% or higher under other scenarios.

Let's SEE those think-tank numbers (think-tanks, included)........seeing-as-how you've already read them!

You're on-the-clock.............

Sorry Shaman but your clock doesn't dictate my life. I don't bookmark everything I read on the web but I will try to find a link for ya ... at my convenience.

Dop

The Soviet Union seems to have had a success with their new 10% flat tax.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Sorry Shaman but your clock doesn't dictate my life. I don't bookmark everything I read on the web but I will try to find a link for ya ... at my convenience.

Dop
In-other-words, this is another one o' those everybody knows facts, huh.........what they say.......right........more-commonly-referred-to as bullshit?

You must have some awfully-forgiving friends, every time you open-your-mouth.......or, they're continually laughin'-behind-your-back.


http://www.cheers-becker.de/c_cliff_02.JPG

Shaman - I would like to see where you get the numbers you are throwing out. You are suggesting that 15% would work. Where does that nuber come from and what stats back it up?

Originally posted by Echo2
Shaman - I would like to see where you get the numbers you are throwing out.

I ALWAYS post the sights to back-up my contentions........which is what pisses-off MOST people, here!!!

You are suggesting that 15% would work. Where does that nuber come from and what stats back it up?
Where did I say that?

SHOW me!!

<Uhhhhhhhh......by-the-way, Skippy! That's n-u-m-b-e-r!!>

I didn't say I would not provide a link shaman ... I only said I would do it when I have time.

Chrissakes ... lighten up Zell.

Dop

I was asking a question and you come back with a nasty answer. I'm sorry if you are having a bad day. And I appologise for by poor typing abilities.

You are arguing that Lungs 23% and 30% numbers are to high and insunuating that he made them up. I said 15% because that number came up earlier in the string and I thought it was you that had posted it. I'm sorry if that was wrong. I was just wondering what brought you to the conclusion that Lungs numbers were to high? Do you have any stats on what the % would have to be to cover costs?

holy crap the crazy leftists are going at each other! :corn:

Estate taxes are part of the ongoing problem; double taxation and yes I would suggest stop that practice immediately..
Once upon a time folks threw a tea party over that shit.

ref/www.heritage.org ...
.. another think tank w/flat tax info..
"4 = The number of times (counting the capital gains tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax, and death—or estate—tax) that a single dollar of income can be taxed under the current system. By eliminating all forms of double taxation, the flat tax ensures that the government will treat all income equally and would end one of the biggest causes of tax evasion and complexity in the code."

There are other countries that employ flat tax systems. Found to be more profitable and less labor intensive.
Hong Kong brought in a flat tax in 1947. Other flat tax adherents.. Estonia,Latvia,Lithuania, and Slovakia, and Russia..

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I didn't say I would not provide a link shaman ... I only said I would do it when I have time.
If I had a resource with such specific-numbers, it'd be bookmarked in SHORTorder!!!!!!!

If ya' plan on goin'-to-war with the NeoCons, ya' gotta have BOTH-barrels loaded, at ALL times!!!!!

Chrissakes ... lighten up Zell.

*

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/zellheil.jpg

" 'N, DON'T SMART-MOUTH ME, BOY!!!!!!!"

Originally posted by Echo2
You are arguing that Lungs 23% and 30% numbers are to high and insunuating that he made them up.
Bullshit!!

I've got no problem, with his agenda.....but, I would expect accurate-numbers, and their source!!!!! Hell, I'D like access to sources, like that!!!! Doing otherwise, makes us start soundin' like the LYING DITTO-MONKEYS, on the OTHER-side!!!!

Originally posted by Travh20
holy crap the crazy leftists are going at each other! :corn:
Hey, no prob!

We'll leave the lock-steppin' to you folks on the Right.

Besides.........we never (much) cared for those uniforms.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/photos/p44/p3/p44373.gif

Originally posted by jim's op/ed
Estate taxes are part of the ongoing problem...........
Only for the 1%ers..........who consider corporate-farms THEIR version of a family-farm. :rolleyes:

"Proposals to substantially reform the estate tax have been offered since 2000, some that would have immediately raised the amount of wealth exempted by the tax to $3 or 4 million instead of waiting until 2009. But the all-or-nothing repeal lobby has voted to completely oppose these reforms. They want to hold smaller millionaires hostage in order to win complete repeal for their wealthy patrons. (http://www.responsiblewealth.org/estatetax/estate_tax_reform.html) "

Yeah......the 1%ers DO eat their young!!

How can anyone consider what tax Americans should pay without first considering more efficient government spending habits??

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
How can anyone consider what tax Americans should pay without first considering more efficient government spending habits??
I guess it's simply an old Republican-tradition. (http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html)