KCFlyer said:
You are missing their point...it's great if my kid wants to "own" her own social security...But I've been paying in for over 30 years, and the funds I put in paid for my parents...not me. If several folks "own" their own SS, then who will fund mine? And how will it be funded? The Bush Administration doesn't want anyone to "own" their social security...they want the to let them "invest" in the stock market. Just don't let the shareholders have a say in granting stock options and pay packages for the executives who now control their retirement accounts. And maybe it's just us "liberals" who recognize that the power and lure of greed is very strong. How many times over the past 4 years have we read of corporated executives screwed over shareholders while making themselves weatlhier? Think those guys would want to let a bunch of shareholders determine whether or not they should get repriced stock options, or have any kind of say in what kind of golden parachute he can negotiate? Yes...the past 4 years have shown that indeed, there are many "crooks" running companies. Kenny Boy Lay is a very good example.
You think the current deductions for FICA are held in some special fund and the money is paid out to John Q. Retiree each month? Like it's held in some special, to quote Al Gore, "lockbox"? Heck no. That money is spent by the government. To hear the liberals talk, you'd think the stock market is composed of stocks in fly-by-night companies run by crooks, just because of some thieves like Ken Lay or Terry McAuliffe's best buddy, Global Crossing CEO Gary Winnick. Do you also assume all Presidents sell pardons, lie under oath and obstruct justice because Clinton did it? Most companies, especially major ones which make up the S&P 500 are run by basically honest businessmen, not crooked thieves like Lay or incompetent and overpaid boobs like Wolf & Gangwal at USAirways. If you do think that the S&P 500 companies are all crooks, then you simply don't believe in our capitalist system. To allow folks paying into Social Security to
voluntarily invest
part of their deductions into a broad-based stock fund isn't some Republican fat cat plot to defraud the masses. It simply allows people to get a better return on that money in a safe manner. Big brother doesn't always know best, despite what the liberals think.
If you object to this, then why don't the libs object to state lotteries, which are, after all, a tax on people with poor math skills?
KCFlyer said:
S&P 500 5 year performance
Click on that to see your S&P 500 for the past 5 years. How'd you like your retirement to be tied to that?
How about click on this for a truer picture:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^SPX&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
I don't know why the change is shown as "0.00%", because the graph clearly shows otherwise. Perhaps because it just shows the day's change and trading hadn't begun. I can do as you did (i.e. pick and choose a certain time time frame to prove my point) to show some fantastic return, but the only true picture is long-term, which is what I did, and which is what the reality would be for wage earners after a lifetime of working. This could easily be accomplished by only allowing wage earners under the age of 50 to take part in any new voluntary program. That would ensure that at least 12 years would pass before they were retirement eligible and they wouldn't get burned if the S&P 500 dipped for several years.
KCFlyer said:
Yes, he did go after Osama. But then he went after Saddam. And you have to look at risk versus reward...what was the ultimate goal? To make the US safer against terrorism? If so, then that goal has failed.
He had to go after Osama because Clinton turned down the chance to grab him when he was offered, something which the Democrats conveniently ignore. He was
still going after Osama while going after Saddam. For all we know, Osama was killed at Tora Bora. It would be relatively easy for Al Qaeda to prove he's alive, something they haven't done, instead of providing grainy audio tapes. I have heard speculation that the audio tapes could simply be patched together concoctions done on a computer using pre-recorded stuff from before his demise. They won't admit to his death for political reasons. Even the video stuff could easily prove he's alive if they showed him, for example, holding a current newspaper. But they haven't done that either.
KCFlyer said:
The risks involved with unilaterally ousting Saddam haven't outweighed any rewards...because we don't HAVE any tangible rewards, other than a bunch of freed Iraqi's who are often times wondering if life might not have been better under Saddam.
Unilaterally? I guess the Brits and Australians, among others, don't count worth crap in the liberal's world. Only the mighty French military juggernaut is worth anything. Those SOB's wouldn't even let us overfly their country when we bombed Libya in the 80s. That's who you want help from? Or the mighty U.N., when they're not busy collecting graft/bribes/kickbacks from their favorite dictator?
The "freed Iraqis" would prefer Saddam to what they have now? I guess the ones who weren't being tortured and raped during his reign. The only problems they have are the ones caused by terrorists. You know, the ones compared to our Revolutionary War Minutemen by Michael Moore. The ones who behead innocent people but who aren't condemned by the likes of Teddy "A Blonde In Every Pond" Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. They've identified the true evil doers as U.S. Servicemen/women putting panties on Iraqi prisoners' heads.
KCFlyer said:
Yeah...except that they endorsed Bush last year and initially supported the war effort. You miss a bit on the analogy with the speedometer though...It's be one thing to say, after the speedometer was checked and indeed proved to be wrong, "Dang, that speedometer was wrong". But Bush can't/won't do that...instead he says "Your radar gun was miscalibrated, because my mechanic told me last month that my speedometer was working great"...in other words, he can't/won't admit a mistake. When confronted that the information on WMD's was in error, he shifted the topic to "harboring terrorists". Bush is supposedly a godly man...has he ever read in the scripture that to err is human? Can his pastor maybe tell him that it's okay to say "hey, that was a mistake"? Instead, his actions have an appearance of evasiveness...and evasiveness usually indicates...lying.
So first you sort of admit he wasn't really lying, just wouldn't admit to what you call a mistake. Then you go back to saying he was lying because he was, what you call, evasive.
Talking about admitting to mistakes, I remember a creep who waved his Johnson at a female subordinate. The subordinate took him to court and all she really wanted was an admission of guilt and an apology. The creep refused to admit his behavior or apologize and instead stonewalled, obstructed justice, tried to bribe witnesses, and got a squad of lawyers to fight tooth and nail against what was obviously a truthful charge. That creep was Bill Clinton, but since he was a Democrat, I guess you have no problem with his refusing to admit to a mistake?