Social Security. It's not about privatization, it's about Choice.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

progressive...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 12:03:39 PM2/26/05
to
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148827,00.html

FOLLOW THE MONEY

As President Bush boldly goes where no politician has dared go, it's
interesting to note it is primarily leftists, who have taken it upon
themselves, to attempt to prevent Social Security from being made whole
again.

Why, do you suppose, is the left so frantically opposed to Social
Security reforms?

Particularly, what is it about freedom and choice, within the framework
of individual Americans' Social Security portfolios, which leftists are
so afraid of?

It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
Everyone has known for years. Decades even.

No. Leftists aren't concerned with the financial health of Social
Security. Something else is driving their agenda.

The left wants to keep control of the money. If individuals can choose
their own options, that means the socialists are not making those
decisions.

It's not about 'privatization'. It's not even about Social Security.
It's about power.

Ron O'Neal

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 2:37:56 PM2/26/05
to
"It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
Everyone has known for years. Decades even."

Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from SS.
I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS since
I was an adolescent, five decades of it.

None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????

The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly. The
management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of the
Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
soon.

These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.

RO

<progressive...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109437419.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Notroll2005

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 4:14:16 PM2/26/05
to

<progressive...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109437419.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

It's about money and BushFraud. Bush wants to raise SS taxes, which show up
as current revenue and masks his huge deficits. There is no trust fund.
Just IOU's. Congress will spend all the current funds, leaving SS with a
bunch of IOU's that the Treasury will have to borrow for to repay.
BushFraud's private funds have nothing to do with SS solvency.


Harry Hope

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 5:27:28 PM2/26/05
to
On 26 Feb 2005 09:03:39 -0800, progressive...@yahoo.com
wrote:

c-bee1

unread,
Feb 26, 2005, 9:28:21 PM2/26/05
to

<progressive...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109437419.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
same lies different day


American Truth

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 12:10:41 AM2/27/05
to

"Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:4220d003$0$23565$8b46...@news.nationwide.net...

> "It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
> Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>
> Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from SS.
> I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
since
> I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>
> None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>
> The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
> sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly. The
> management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of the
> Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
> soon.
>
> These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.
>
> RO

Well, Bush's target is the working middle-class of America who hasn't time
to review his motives for greed and can easily be misled by a snake oil
salesman like Bush.

What's disgusting is that Bush says some bullshit and the Pugs validate it
like it's the Gospel, without any scrutiny nor skeptisism.


The Pervert

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 12:26:58 PM2/27/05
to

"American Truth" <repub...@suck.com> wrote in message
news:0KcUd.10904$rj5....@fe06.lga...

If what you say has any validity (which would be a first), then why are some
Republicans scrutinizing his plan with some measure of skepticism?

Clearly the disgusting party here is you. No surprise in that, of course.


American Truth

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 1:20:43 PM2/27/05
to

"The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vP2dnaDJ3Jm...@comcast.com...

Typical Pug response.

progressive...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 2:05:55 PM2/27/05
to
Ron O'Neal wrote:
> "It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it
does.
> Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>
> Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement
from SS.
> I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
since
> I was an adolescent, five decades of it.

Confirming the fact, these problems have been known for decades, yes.


>
> None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????

None were expected to happen yet. The fact is there are
well-documented funding issues which undermine the very foundations of
Social Security, beginning in 2018.

Sir, that means when you're just 77, Social Security funding will slip
into negative cash flow.

Remember the 'trust fund' has been heavily mortgaged. It's not really
there - it's really a bunch of IOU's, literally written in a loose leaf
notebook in some cabinet.

The best case scenario is that it will be discovered, all those IOU's
are worth more than the paper they're written on.

However, in the context of 6 Trillion dollars of federal debt, is it
safe to presume the financial scenario unfolding before our eyes, is
likely to do so according to optimistic projections?

You've experienced enough of life to understand how dramatically
assumptions can change. Should Americans base our future security, on
rosy assumptions?


>
> The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
> sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly.
The
> management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of
the
> Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the
system
> soon.

Yes. The ratio of working Americans paying into the system, to retired
Americans drawing from the system, will in fact reach 2 to 1.

Sir your second observation glosses over a significant issue. "There


is a yearly surplus in the Fund, sufficient to the point that Congress
borrows the surplus regularly".

What happens when a homeowner takes out a second mortgage on the family
home, to buy for example a boat? Does that mean the house is still
paid for?...

Your next observation is the real doozie: that big influx of retirees
about to enter the system. Further eroding the ratio of working
Americans paying into the system, to retired Americans drawing
benefits, until it reaches 2 to 1.

When you really get down to the basics - that means if you as a retiree
are drawing 50,000 a year in benefits, each of us working will need to
pay in 25,000 every year, to maintain equilibrium in Social Security
cash flow.

You really expect we can do that?...


>
> These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.

No, Sir. Thanks for everything your generation has done for the rest
of us, but the problem is real. Please don't stop being helpful, bold
and observant now simply because you've retired, in the face of this
challenge.

Thank you.

cliff...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Feb 27, 2005, 9:31:57 PM2/27/05
to
Read the fine print in Bush's plan. His proposal is to cut social
security. Privatization is a smoke screen.

Rich Travsky

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 1:33:29 AM2/28/05
to
progressive...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148827,00.html
>
> FOLLOW THE MONEY
>
> As President Bush boldly goes where no politician has dared go, it's
> interesting to note it is primarily leftists, who have taken it upon
> themselves, to attempt to prevent Social Security from being made whole
> again.
>
> Why, do you suppose, is the left so frantically opposed to Social
> Security reforms?


http://www.bakersfield.com/24hour/politics/story/1886409p-9816974c.html
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) - Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist's campaign committee lost more than $500,000
in the stock market since the 2000 election and could not cover a bank
loan that came due in August, records showed.
...
Altogether, the committee lost more than $524,000 on stocks since
November 2000, the records showed.
...


> Particularly, what is it about freedom and choice, within the framework
> of individual Americans' Social Security portfolios, which leftists are
> so afraid of?
>
> It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
> Everyone has known for years. Decades even.
>
> No. Leftists aren't concerned with the financial health of Social
> Security. Something else is driving their agenda.
>
> The left wants to keep control of the money. If individuals can choose
> their own options, that means the socialists are not making those
> decisions.
>
> It's not about 'privatization'. It's not even about Social Security.
> It's about power.

You're free to invest all you want right now...

RT

progressive...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 8:46:04 AM2/28/05
to

cliff...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Read the fine print in Bush's plan. His proposal is to cut social
> security. Privatization is a smoke screen.

What does that leftist mush mean?

You sound like a robot. "Smoke screen" beep. "Smoke screen" beep.
"Smoke screen" beep.

But bring it on. Why not. Facts might be a novel place to start.

Fact:

Bush doesn't yet have a plan with any fine print to read. You knew
that right? Oh no you didn't, did you. In fact you really don't know
what you're talking about. You're just jabbering.

On the other hand Bush has said very clearly, a number of times, he's
ready to listen to any and all suggestions.

BTW are you American?

Beep.

Geo

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:39:44 AM2/28/05
to


Good article. Ask yourself this. If a private company called you up
and offered you a plan with the below benefits would you a) invest in
it; b) call the police and have the bum arrested; or c) cover your
eyes, ears and mouth and ignore the problem.

- fork over 15% of your income
- earn a 3% return
- the benefis are not guaranteed
- the benefits are subject to change by the govt at any time
- the benefits are subject to complete removal at any time
- the tax rate that you pay may go up
- the retirement age can (and has) go up and you have no say
- once you die (the sooner the better) the remainder does not go to
your heirs
- the govt borrows your money with a promise to repay you, subject to
all the above

Would you buy this kind of plan if you had a choice?

-

Geo

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:03:02 AM2/28/05
to

Ron O'Neal wrote:
> "It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it
does.
> Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>
> Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement
from SS.
> I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
since
> I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>
> None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>
> The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
> sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly.
The
> management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of
the
> Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the
system
> soon.
>
> These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.
>
> RO
>

RO, the democrats were saying the exact same thing just a mere few
years ago. Other than the fact that a republican is in the white
house, what has changed their minds? In its current state SS is
heading for insolvency. But hey, we'll both be dead when that happens
so who cares, right?

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 10:29:50 AM2/28/05
to
"Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote:

>"It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
>Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>
>Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from SS.
>I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS since
>I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>
>None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>
>The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
>sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly. The
>management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of the
>Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
>soon.
>
>These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.

To paraphrase his reply: "I've got mine"


JSL

ouroboros rex

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 11:29:19 AM2/28/05
to

"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:422338ca....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...

> "Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>"It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
>>Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>>
>>Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from SS.
>>I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
>>since
>>I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>>
>>None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>>
>>The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
>>sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly. The
>>management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of the
>>Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
>>soon.
>>
>>These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.
>
> To paraphrase his reply: "I've got mine"

Simply a lie.

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 1:08:19 PM2/28/05
to
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>
>"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:422338ca....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
>> "Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
>>>Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>>>
>>>Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from SS.
>>>I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
>>>since
>>>I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>>>
>>>None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>>>
>>>The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
>>>sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly. The
>>>management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of the
>>>Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
>>>soon.
>>>
>>>These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.
>>
>> To paraphrase his reply: "I've got mine"
>
> Simply a lie.

That's true...

The fund is not in good shape....in fact, there is no fund.
The management of the fund is non-existant. Should a private pension
fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
in jail so fast your head would spin.

JSL


Rightard Whitey

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 1:23:03 PM2/28/05
to
There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the lock box to pay
for his Iraq War. There was money in the SS fund when Bush took office.

ouroboros rex

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 1:39:26 PM2/28/05
to

"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:42235d9b....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...

> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:422338ca....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
>>> "Ron O'Neal" <ron...@wt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"It's not like the system doesn't need reform. Everyone knows it does.
>>>>Everyone has known for years. Decades even."
>>>>
>>>>Rubbish! I am 64 years old and I am drawing a monthly retirement from
>>>>SS.
>>>>I have been hearing the most dire gloom and doom predictions about SS
>>>>since
>>>>I was an adolescent, five decades of it.
>>>>
>>>>None of them have come true. Make it "whole again"????
>>>>
>>>>The Fund is in good shape. There is a yearly surplus in the Fund,
>>>>sufficient to the point that Congress borrows the surplus regularly.
>>>>The
>>>>management of the Fund appears to be sound. And Yes, the managers of
>>>>the
>>>>Fund know that a big influx of retirees will be brought into the system
>>>>soon.
>>>>
>>>>These complaints sound like a 50 year old broken record.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase his reply: "I've got mine"
>>
>> Simply a lie.
>
> That's true...
>
> The fund is not in good shape....in fact, there is no fund.

Cite?

> The management of the fund is non-existant.

Cite?

> Should a private pension
> fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
> in jail so fast your head would spin.

Their loan would have the full faith and backing of the US government?
lol


MikeSoja

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 3:54:14 PM2/28/05
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:23:03 GMT, Rightard Whitey
<eel...@tampabay.rr.com> posted:

>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>> The fund is not in good shape....in fact, there is no fund.
>> The management of the fund is non-existant. Should a private pension
>> fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
>> in jail so fast your head would spin.

>There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the lock box to pay

>for his Iraq War. There was money in the SS fund when Bush took office.

Yer lying. There hasn't been any money in the fund since the 1940s.

Today's Wall Street Journal states, "During the 1950s, 1960s, and
early 1970s, surplus payroll taxes were used to finance benefit
increases. Since the 1980s, surplus payroll taxes have been used to
finance expansions in government activities unrelated to Social
Security. The fact that Treasury bills representing surplus revenues
are printed up in Parkersburg, W.Va., and placed in a 'trust fund'
does not mean that the government has created a financial asset.
Instead, it signifies only that the government has counted the money
twice: once as an additional outlay and once as an addition to
Social Security's assets. A financial 'two-fer' that would be
illegal if used by a private corporation."


Mike Soja

Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson demonstrating
the brains that led him to Marxism:

"Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is
was something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps."

"Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a
757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for
several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly
vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in
a twenty foot hold."

"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But
I'm convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."

"It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such
aircraft remnants whatsoever were ever reported being
photographed, ever reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or
ever reported being recovered from the site. Not to mention seat
fragments, luggage, body parts, etc. Zip."

"I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon."

"[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a
utility pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should
have left a large amount of indisputable debris well outside the
building. It's also impossible to envision the plane not going
into a wild spin at that moment and immediately losing all
control, especially if the remaining engine was still powered
up."

"Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the
Pentagon. It was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too
small to be any sort of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or
AGMs."

"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

chris.holt

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:40:28 PM2/28/05
to
ah...@no-spam-panix.com wrote:

> No entity can make money by lending to itself.
>
> This is obvious.

Actually, I'm not sure that it is. Remember that when
we go up from households to corporations and governments,
things don't always work quite the same way.

A lot of the value of large organizations depends on
confidence, on people's willingness to trust them. Look
at how share prices move, how bonds shift (both short
term and long term), how forex changes affect things.
These all depend on people's perceptions, rather than
on balance sheets.

If an entity can move money/debt from one place to
another and affect these public perceptions, then it
can indeed make money; and lending money to itself
is a mechanism for doing this. There may be a price
to pay in the long run, a la Enron or WorldCom, but
if you do it honestly and without a subsequent meltdown,
you can still have ended up making money.

--


chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt

bloo...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:55:11 PM2/28/05
to
When the Republicans offer a plan, I guess we'll comment on it. So
far, they haven't offered a plan. But the vague ideas they float
certainly don't fall into the "reform" category, and my understanding
is that NPR and CNN are no longer going to even use the term "reform"
in reference to the Cheney-Lay administration's desire to destroy
social security.

Actually, I think I'n going to forgo discussion oif social security
until you folks turn your war criminals over to the International War
Crime Tribunal. Then we'll discuss social security.

Notroll2005

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 6:39:56 PM2/28/05
to

<ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgll98...@panix1.panix.com...
>>>>>> Rightard Whitey writes:
> Rightard> There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the lock box
> to pay
> Rightard> for his Iraq War. There was money in the SS fund when Bush
> took office.
>
> No there was not. It has always been spent, every
> penny.
>
> The big shift was after the Greenspan commission in 1982
> or so. That led to legislation that raised SS taxes, creating
> a huge surplus. The democrats and republicans then spent all
> that extra money, while pretending the extra spending was not
> part of the budget. That way they got to buy lots of votes
> and pretend to be more fiscally responsible than they really
> were.
>
> Bush did increase spending radically, and the debt has been
> growing a lot faster because of it, but there was never any
> such thing as a SS Trust Fund. Just IOUs backed the same
> future taxpayers that always backed future SS liabilities.
>
> A huge fraud. Huge!
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)

And Bush wants to increase the fraud by raising the wage base (and therefore
taxes) subject to ss tax. He gets to count the additional tax as current
revenue which will help mask the huge Bush deficits. When it comes time for
fund to redeem it's Treasury IOU's we'll be in the same hole we are now -
only deeper. Bush is a fraud.


MikeSoja

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 6:28:20 PM2/28/05
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:40:28 +0000, "chris.holt"
<chris...@ncl.ac.uk> posted:

>ah...@no-spam-panix.com wrote:

>> No entity can make money by lending to itself.

>> This is obvious.

>Actually, I'm not sure that it is. Remember that when
>we go up from households to corporations and governments,
>things don't always work quite the same way.

Blather.

>A lot of the value of large organizations depends on
>confidence, on people's willingness to trust them. Look
>at how share prices move, how bonds shift (both short
>term and long term), how forex changes affect things.
>These all depend on people's perceptions, rather than
>on balance sheets.

There is a big difference between market capitalization (the thing
you're blathering about) and the balance of plant, cash, and debt
(the things in the ledger books), Chris, and it's fairly apparent
you don't know what that difference is.

>If an entity can move money/debt from one place to
>another and affect these public perceptions, then it
>can indeed make money; and lending money to itself
>is a mechanism for doing this. There may be a price
>to pay in the long run, a la Enron or WorldCom, but
>if you do it honestly and without a subsequent meltdown,
>you can still have ended up making money.

Good Lord, what a joke. You don't have a clue, do ya?

Get a $100 bill, Chris, and put it in your left pocket. Now loan it
to yourself by taking it out and putting it in your right pocket.
Put a note in the left pocket saying your left pocket is owed $100
plus 3% interest per annum. At the end of a year what have you got?

$100 and a note with a little scribbling on it.

Now, you may be thinking that you can take your right pocket money
and buy a penny stock and at the end of the year you'll have $1000
in your right pocket, out of which you pay your left pocket $103,
but what's the difference between that and forgetting all the right
pocket crap and buying the penny stock with the original $100 out of
the left pocket? You end up with the same amount of money.
Contrary to your assertion, you can't make any money that way. And
if you're doing it to avoid taxes, and you get caught, they'll come
and slam your ass in the little house.

Further, the difference between the scenarios I just outlined and
what the government does with the money in the Social Security Trust
Fund, is that the government takes the money out of the left pocket
(leaving a hastily scribbled note) and just spends it. It doesn't
invest it. It doesn't put any strings on it at all. It never
expects to get any of it back. It just hopes that at the end of the
year that it will find $103 some where else, in one of the other
many revenue streams it has.

Comprende, Chris?

Sid9

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 5:45:03 PM2/28/05
to

You propose that the US Treasury will default on $1.6 trillion of their
notes?


Social Security Trust Fund Sits in Drawer
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent

February 28, 2005, 9:31 AM EST

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. -- The Social Security trust fund really does exist --
nestled in the bottom drawer of an unremarkable government file cabinet.

It's in a pair of white loose-leaf notebooks holding plastic page covers.
Each caresses a piece of paper representing a bond worth a staggering amount
of money. Say, $8,577,396,000.00 ($8.577 billion), due on June 30, 2013,
with 6.5 percent interest.

Sort of.

Actually, the entire setup is, well, a setup:

* The off-white file cabinet in the office building hard by the Ohio River.

* The electronic locks.

* The papers -- signed by Susan Chapman of the Office of Public Debt
Accounting -- obligating the "full faith and credit" of the United States to
make good on the money owed.

"The paper is symbolic," says Pete Hollenbach, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau
of Public Debt, the creation of a 1994 law that anticipated the current
debate about Social Security's solvency and whether the trust funds held
anything more than IOUs.

As the computer era flowered, Congress passed legislation requiring the
Treasury to create a "physical document in form of bond, note or certificate
of indebtedness, rather than accounting entry."

"I viewed it as somewhat Biblical ... like doubting Thomas," says Andy
Jacobs, the former Indiana congressman behind the law.

In an interview, Jacobs said he wanted to rebut the "disingenuous
assertions" that there was no trust fund, even though there was, in fact, no
vault stuffed with cash to pay benefits.

Now, as then, the paper is an anachronism in a system that provides benefits
to 47 million Americans.

Apart from being the repository of one particular file cabinet, the
government facility in western West Virginia is responsible for managing
trust funds that were worth about $1.6 trillion at the end of January.

In the computerized world of the early 21st century, the government collects
Social Security payroll taxes and credits it to two trust funds. One pays
benefits to retirees and their survivors; the other is for disability
payments.

Technically, there are four trust funds in all that are fed by payroll
taxes, but the other two relate to Medicare.

As a matter of bookkeeping, the government takes the payroll taxes it has
collected for Social Security and invests them in short-term,
interest-bearing electronic certificates of indebtedness.

Essentially, Treasury borrows these funds and uses them to help pay for the
full range of government programs and services, Social Security benefits
included.

Each June 30, some of this borrowed money is converted to a series of
15-year Special Interest Bonds at designated interest rates.

The bonds are phased -- laddered in investment parlance. This is done in
part to invest available funds at current rates and in part to make sure
that Social Security has the cash needed to pay beneficiaries each month.
..."

Rightard Whitey

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:51:37 PM2/28/05
to
ah...@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>Rightard Whitey writes:
> Rightard> There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the lock box to pay
> Rightard> for his Iraq War. There was money in the SS fund when Bush took office.
>
> No there was not. It has always been spent, every
> penny.
>
> The big shift was after the Greenspan commission in 1982
> or so. That led to legislation that raised SS taxes, creating
> a huge surplus. The democrats and republicans then spent all
> that extra money, while pretending the extra spending was not
> part of the budget. That way they got to buy lots of votes
> and pretend to be more fiscally responsible than they really
> were.
>
> Bush did increase spending radically, and the debt has been
> growing a lot faster because of it, but there was never any
> such thing as a SS Trust Fund. Just IOUs backed the same
> future taxpayers that always backed future SS liabilities.
>
> A huge fraud. Huge!
>
Have the rightards and humnazees forgot about the Al Gore lockbox?
Have they forgotten that Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget?

Sid9

unread,
Feb 28, 2005, 9:57:26 PM2/28/05
to
ah...@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> Rightard Whitey writes:
>
> Rightard> There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the
> lock box to pay Rightard> for his Iraq War. There was money in the

> SS fund when Bush took office.
>
> No there was not. It has always been spent, every
> penny.
>
> The big shift was after the Greenspan commission in 1982
> or so. That led to legislation that raised SS taxes, creating
> a huge surplus. The democrats and republicans then spent all
> that extra money, while pretending the extra spending was not
> part of the budget. That way they got to buy lots of votes
> and pretend to be more fiscally responsible than they really
> were.
>
> Bush did increase spending radically, and the debt has been
> growing a lot faster because of it, but there was never any
> such thing as a SS Trust Fund. Just IOUs backed the same
> future taxpayers that always backed future SS liabilities.
>
> A huge fraud. Huge!

Bush,jr is a liar, as usual.
True, there's no money in the trust fund.....only $1.6 trillion in treasury
bonds.
Is Bush,Jr, liar, proposing that the the government default on repaying
those bonds?


cliff...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 12:14:22 AM3/1/05
to
Yup. I'm an American. Most people don't ask they just start flaming
first. So thanks for asking.

Even though Bush hasn't sent a specific plan to Congress, it's well
understood that his plan is based on plan 2 of "The President's
Commission to Strengthen Social Security", (CSSS) dated Dec. 21, 2001.
You can get a copy of it at:

http://www.commtostrengthensocsec.gov/reports/Final_report.pdf

The CBO has done an analysis of Bush's social security proposal. It's
dated July 21, 2004 and was updated Sept. 30, 2004. It's entitled,
"Long-Term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President's Commission to
Strengthen Social Security". This document has 26 pages, not counting
attachments. There are about 14 attachments (figures and tables) at the
end of the document.

The HTML version is available at:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5666&sequence=0

The PDF version is available at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5666&type=1

The plan to switch from wage-based to price-based indexing is well
documented in these reports as well as news releases, etc. That doesn't
mean, of course, that the plan will be adopted, or even considered by
the Congress. As a matter of fact, my impression is that Bush's
proposal was dead on arrival when Congress got it.

Here's a copy of an article from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg's website:

"WASHINGTON, DC -- United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
issued the following statement today after learning a senior White
House official acknowledged that President Bush's plan to create
private accounts must result in cuts to Social Security benefits.

Reacting to statements by White House Director of Strategic Initiatives
on Wednesday, Senator Lautenberg said, "This only confirms what we knew
all along. The Bush plan is nothing more than a smokescreen to cutting
people's Social Security checks," said Senator Lautenberg. "If people
want to gamble, I suggest they go to Atlantic City."

White House Director of Strategic Initiatives Peter Wehner wrote the
internal email published in Wednesday's Congress Daily.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Bush
administration's proposed adjustment to wage indexing would cut
benefits in half for children born today, and reveals what many say are
the Administration's true motives -- to dismantle the Social Security
system.

Wehner's email continues, "For the first time in six decades, the
Social Security battle is one we can win."

"This email shows that Republicans are truly opposed to Social Security
and plan to fight it at every turn," said Lautenberg."

Here's a copy of the White House memo from Peter Wehner, the deputy to
White House political director. The third paragraph from the bottom
talks about wage indexing. The White House has confirmed the
authenticity of the memo:

"From: Wehner, Peter H. [mailto:Peter_H...@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Some Thoughts on Social Security
I wanted to provide to you our latest thinking (not for attribution) on
Social Security reform.

I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most important
conservative undertakings of modern times. If we succeed in reforming
Social Security, it will rank as one of the most significant
conservative governing achievements ever. The scope and scale of this
endeavor are hard to overestimate.

Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and
political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in
this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this
month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading
for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything
like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless
significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public
mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course.
That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is
the pre-condition to authentic reform.

Given that, our aim is to introduce market reforms in Social Security
and make the system permanently solvent and sustainable.

We intend to pursue the first goal by using our will and energy toward
the creation of Personal Retirement Accounts. As you know, our advocacy
for personal accounts is tied to our commitment to an Ownership Society
-- one in which more people will own their health care plans and have
the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. Our goal is to
provide a path to grater opportunity, more freedom, and more control
for individuals over their own lives. That is what the personal account
debate is fundamentally about -- and it is clearly the crucial new
conservative idea in the history of the Social Security debate.

Second, we're going to take a very close look at changing the way
benefits are calculated. As you probably know, under current law
benefits are calculated by a "wage index" -- but because wages grow
faster than inflation, so do Social Security benefits. If we don't
address this aspect of the current system, we'll face serious economic
risks.

It's worth noting that wage indexation was not part of the original
design of Social Security. The current method of wage indexation was
created in 1977, under (you guessed it) the Carter Administration. Wage
indexation makes it impossible to "grow our way" out of the Social
Security problem. If the economy grows faster and wages rise, this
produces more tax revenue. But the faster wage growth also means that
we owe more in Social Security benefits. This has produced a
never-ending cycle of higher tax burdens, even during periods of robust
economic growth. It is the classic case of the dog chasing his tail
around the tree; he can run faster and faster, and never make any
progress.

You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer
to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust
benefits -- therefore making no effort to address this fundamental
structural problem. In my judgment, that's a bad idea. We simply cannot
solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts
alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability -- as we
believe it should be --then Personal Retirements Accounts, for all
their virtues, are insufficient to that task. And playing "kick the
can" is simply not the credo of this President. He wants to do what
needs to be done for genuine repair of Social Security. . ."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950/
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000119.html
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/jan_2005/ss_debate_off_to_misleading_start.html
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005106915.html

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 8:47:23 AM3/1/05
to
Rightard Whitey <eel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

Good lord. You really aren't that ignorant are you?

JSL

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 8:50:22 AM3/1/05
to
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Are saying I am wrong?

>
>> The management of the fund is non-existant.
>
>Cite?

Well...after I prove the first one its easy to demonstrate that there
is no fund to manage.

>
>> Should a private pension
>> fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
>> in jail so fast your head would spin.
>
> Their loan would have the full faith and backing of the US government?

Sigh.

>lol

Hilarious.

Wait until its time for you to collect.

JSL

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 10:33:27 AM3/1/05
to

There is NO money in the SS fund....ONLY US Treasury bonds.
$1.6 trillion in US Treasury bonds.
The US government will NOT default on its debt.

The Republican claim is a LIE


Geo

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 10:45:50 AM3/1/05
to


Who said anything about defaulting on the debt? They claim there is no
cash in a so called lock box. Even you agree with that. The bonds are
backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt. But, and here's
the big "but", govt can affect the dispersal of benefits by raising the
retirement age, cutting benefits, raising the tax limit, etc. Hell,
they can even completely decide not to give you benefits. And there's
not one lousy thing that you can do about it. SS is not guaranteed.

Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 10:52:04 AM3/1/05
to

For 70 years we have kept faith with our retirees.
Are you saying that the RRRR's will fail to fulfll their obligation?

Do you think one RRRR would be re-elected if they did what you suggest?


1493 Dead

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 11:16:15 AM3/1/05
to

Let's see if I have this straight: Jeffy thinks $100 bills are closer
to being "real" money than Treasury Bonds?

What does he think supports the value of those C-notes?
>

-

The Nuremberg Principles

Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 12:48:29 PM3/1/05
to
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Where is it going to get the money?

>
>The Republican claim is a LIE

What claim?

JSL

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 12:49:19 PM3/1/05
to
1493 Dead <zepp1493#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:

Yes. Especially when its the government buying its own bonds.

>What does he think supports the value of those C-notes?

Poor Zepp.

JSL

ouroboros rex

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 12:55:44 PM3/1/05
to

"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:422472e1....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.


>
>>
>>> The management of the fund is non-existant.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> Well...after I prove the first one its easy to demonstrate that there
> is no fund to manage.

Get started. lol

>
>>
>>> Should a private pension
>>> fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
>>> in jail so fast your head would spin.
>>
>> Their loan would have the full faith and backing of the US government?
>
> Sigh.
>
>>lol
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Wait until its time for you to collect.

lol Did you forget Bushy boy and his lie campaign to do me out of it?


Rightard Whitey

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:01:17 PM3/1/05
to
I checked on this. About 75 per cent of Social Security tax goes to
people on Social Security. The other 25 per cent goes into the SS fund
or the lock box, which Bush can't keep his hands out of to pay for the
Iraqi War.

Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:04:28 PM3/1/05
to

This is a totally dumb statement put out by Bush,Jr and his thieves.

The treasury bonds held by the SSA must be paid back in cash.
The government is OBLIGATED to fulfill its obligation to repay the bonds in
dollars.

Do you expect the government to default?

Bush,jr has made such a mess of it that he doesn't see a way out except by
killing SS


Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:06:12 PM3/1/05
to

The way governments always get money.
By Taxes or by printing their way out of debt (super inflation)

Do you expect the government to default on redeeming Treasury Bonds?

Geo

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:23:05 PM3/1/05
to


I'm not suggesting the govt do any of the above (even though they
already have). I'm simply telling you what they can do. As far as
keeping the faith recall that the govt already has increased the age of
retirement and the amount of benefits subject to taxation increased.
Guess who was President then. I'm not sure what you are referring to
with this 'RRRR'. Benefits will continue to be paid out. It's just
the criteria that will change.

Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:28:18 PM3/1/05
to

Take your pick:

Republican
Reactionary
Right wing
Religious

That's who controls all the machinery
of government and they are hell bent
on returning us to the days of Coolidge,
Harding and Hoover


Geo

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 1:32:01 PM3/1/05
to


51 votes in the senate is hardly control when 60 votes are needed. You
guys aren't as powerless as you claim.

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 3:56:04 PM3/1/05
to
Rightard Whitey <eel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

THERE IS NO LOCKBOX.
THEY HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE MONEY FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

JSL

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 3:59:31 PM3/1/05
to
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Who bought the bonds? The SSA. Who is the SSA? The government. Its
really not that difficult.

>The government is OBLIGATED to fulfill its obligation to repay the bonds in
>dollars.

OK. Where is it going to get the money? Borrow more? Tax more? Cut
benefits? Reduce spending from the general fund? Really one in the
same isn't it?

>Do you expect the government to default?


I expect they will raise taxes and cut benefits.

>Bush,jr has made such a mess of it that he doesn't see a way out except by
>killing SS

I see. So this is a brand new problem that just cropped up. Yep.

JSL

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 4:00:54 PM3/1/05
to
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I doubt it. But then I never claimed they would.


Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 4:09:23 PM3/1/05
to
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Then please, point out where I am wrong.

>>
>>>
>>>> The management of the fund is non-existant.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>> Well...after I prove the first one its easy to demonstrate that there
>> is no fund to manage.
>
> Get started. lol

What source will you accept as valid?


>>>> Should a private pension
>>>> fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the managers would be
>>>> in jail so fast your head would spin.
>>>
>>> Their loan would have the full faith and backing of the US government?
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>>lol
>>
>> Hilarious.
>>
>> Wait until its time for you to collect.
>
>lol Did you forget Bushy boy and his lie campaign to do me out of it?


I have no idea what you are talking about.

JSL

Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 4:45:21 PM3/1/05
to

The SSA is required by law to turn their cash in for Treasury Bonds.
The bonds are held on behalf of the SS recipients.
The government will fulfill it's obligation.
There is no emergency.
There are only Bush,Jr lies to distract us from the mess in Iraq


Sid9

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 4:47:17 PM3/1/05
to

He's quite clear.

I try to simplify it.

..."Did you forget Bushy boy and his lie campaign to do me out of MY
SS?..."


Maaxx

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 5:29:34 PM3/1/05
to
progressive...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<1109437419.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148827,00.html
>
> FOLLOW THE MONEY
>
> As President Bush boldly goes where no politician has dared go, it's
> interesting to note it is primarily leftists, who have taken it upon
> themselves, to attempt to prevent Social Security from being made whole
> again.

What's funny is that the Democrats have been saying for years that
Social Security needs fixing right up until George Bush decides to fix
it.

Notroll2005

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 6:25:29 PM3/1/05
to

"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:4224d7cd....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
The government won't default. But to redeem those bonds in the trust fund,
the Treasury will have to borrow to raise the cash. Bush wants to increase
ss taxes because those dollars become current revenue which he can use to
hide the deficit, bomb more people, and give massive tax breaks to Enron and
the like. It's just one more example of BushFraud.


1499 Dead

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 6:56:47 PM3/1/05
to

"Fixing" like you fix a broken applience, not "fix" like you fix your
dog.

Notroll2005

unread,
Mar 1, 2005, 7:21:30 PM3/1/05
to

"1499 Dead" <zepp#221114...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:u80a215j23a2la97a...@4ax.com...

That's true. Bush's real goal is to totally abdicate any governmental
responsibility to individuals. It would be nice if he would grow a pair and
put his real agenda on the table. BushFraud.


Steven Canyon

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 7:11:01 AM3/2/05
to

Hey folks, the rumor is that Steve Canyon slipped back into his slip
last Saturday (his Grand-daughter's birthday) and is now ready to look
up any liberals that haven't crawled back into their holes after
getting their asses kicked all the way up to their shoulders in the
last election, and give 'em a few more whacks.

I see that a good share of the cowardly liberals are gone, so I guess
the conservative crowd has been taking care of business here.
They're kind of like cockroaches.. The scurry away when you shine a
light on them.

MikeSoja

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 7:47:42 AM3/2/05
to
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:11:01 GMT, Steven Canyon
<Steven...@yahooooooo.com> posted:

Hard a larboard, Commodore. I trust the voyage was bon.

It didn't take you long to spy ol' tubby there, still plying his
scow under the flag of commie hyperbole, but now dispensing his oil
slick from under a fat fantail newly painted with the appropriate
name, "Dead".

It took him three full months from Kerry's disgrace before he was
able to swim up out of the cess pool of his own wrath and actually
begin responding to detractors. Apparently, the hiatus served to
allow his hate and ignorance to metastasize through every fiber of
his being. It's not a pretty sight.

On the other hand, it's like having a a government-sponsored
artistic work on permanent installation in the galleries, titled
'Shoot the Fat Hate-filled Ravening Fish in a Barrel'. Shots are a
nickel a piece, fifty for a dollar. The line forms behind the
velvet ropes.

Mike Soja

Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson demonstrating
the brains that led him to Marxism:

"Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is
was something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps."

"Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a
757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for
several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly
vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in
a twenty foot hold."

"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But
I'm convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."

"It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such
aircraft remnants whatsoever were ever reported being
photographed, ever reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or
ever reported being recovered from the site. Not to mention seat
fragments, luggage, body parts, etc. Zip."

"I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon."

"[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a
utility pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should
have left a large amount of indisputable debris well outside the
building. It's also impossible to envision the plane not going
into a wild spin at that moment and immediately losing all
control, especially if the remaining engine was still powered
up."

"Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the
Pentagon. It was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too
small to be any sort of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or
AGMs."

"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."

"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."

Message has been deleted

Steven Canyon

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:32:58 AM3/2/05
to
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:47:42 -0500, MikeSoja <mso...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:11:01 GMT, Steven Canyon
><Steven...@yahooooooo.com> posted:
>
>>Hey folks, the rumor is that Steve Canyon slipped back into his slip
>>last Saturday (his Grand-daughter's birthday) and is now ready to look
>>up any liberals that haven't crawled back into their holes after
>>getting their asses kicked all the way up to their shoulders in the
>>last election, and give 'em a few more whacks.
>
>>I see that a good share of the cowardly liberals are gone, so I guess
>>the conservative crowd has been taking care of business here.
>>They're kind of like cockroaches.. The scurry away when you shine a
>>light on them.
>
>Hard a larboard, Commodore. I trust the voyage was bon.

Had an utterly delightful winter, especially after seeing the election
results....

>It didn't take you long to spy ol' tubby there, still plying his
>scow under the flag of commie hyperbole, but now dispensing his oil
>slick from under a fat fantail newly painted with the appropriate
>name, "Dead".

perhaps "dead-end" would be more appropriate these days.

>It took him three full months from Kerry's disgrace before he was
>able to swim up out of the cess pool of his own wrath and actually
>begin responding to detractors.

But it seems that the other weasels have not yet surfaced... did they
all take the bus to Pittsburgh?

> Apparently, the hiatus served to
>allow his hate and ignorance to metastasize through every fiber of
>his being. It's not a pretty sight.

It takes some time for many Canadians to muster up a little courage...

>On the other hand, it's like having a a government-sponsored
>artistic work on permanent installation in the galleries, titled
>'Shoot the Fat Hate-filled Ravening Fish in a Barrel'. Shots are a
>nickel a piece, fifty for a dollar. The line forms behind the
>velvet ropes.
>
>Mike Soja
>


...and I did leave you guys with some evidence, last fall, that Zepp
Jamieson did, in fact, post as "greywolf the wanderer" years ago and
as such, he outed himself as a homosexual, an alcoholic, and a wiccan.
Greywolf/Zepp also disclosed his fantasies about being a four legged
animal that spends a lot of time smelling assholes and pissing on
hydrants. It seems that old Zepp has a lot of strange skeletons in
his closets (pun intended). One really has to wonder what caused him
to be denied citizenship all these years. What sort of abnormal
activities did the fat, queer, canadian witch get himself into down in
Santa Barbara?

--

Did Zepp Jamieson think he was going to get away with posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago?


The similarities are too many to be a coincidence.

Let's examine what "each" of them said

First, Greywolf was born in the UK and then lived in Canada, as did Jamieson.

Then, Greywolf lived in Santa Barbara, as did Jamieson.

Greywolf used to be a bbs sysop in Santa Barbara, as was Jamieson.

Greywolf has a house full of cats and 3 dogs, as does Jamieson

Greywolf used to work at an airport, so did Zepp

Greywolf has samoyeds, as does Jamieson.

Greywolf has a samoyed named Monk, so does Jamieson

Greywolf says he is dyslexic, as does Jamieson.

Greywolf's used Jamieson's account and even used Jamieson's computer

Greywolf claims to be a writer, as does Jamieson

Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Jamieson seems to do a lot of writing about wiccans, even claiming to know several.

Greywolf's favorite quote is "evolution in action, Zepp uses that term all the time, even using it for one of his "commentaries."

Greywolf's an alcoholic who stopped drinking, Jamieson says *he* quit drinking a long time ago

are Greywolf and Zepp the same person?

Now what about all those homosexual fantasy stories that he wrote about the startrek characters as "Greywolf?" "Greywolf" cheerfully described himself as either bisexual or "gay as a three dollar bill."

MikeSoja

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:20:28 AM3/2/05
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:57:26 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net>
posted:

>Bush,jr is a liar, as usual.

He's a politician. If you want an honest person to run your life,
quit delegating the authority to politicians.

>True, there's no money in the trust fund.....only $1.6 trillion in treasury
>bonds.

It's like writing yourself a check for money that's already been
spent. The only way you can cash it is to steal the money from
someone else. That's what the U.S. government is going to have to
do.

>Is Bush,Jr, liar, proposing that the the government default on repaying
>those bonds?

Of course not, but where do you think the money is going to come
from to buy those "bonds" back? And how many more people are piling
into the system every day, people who are also going to want to be
paid back all the money they will "contribute" to their retirements?

MikeSoja

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:21:26 AM3/2/05
to
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:51:37 GMT, Rightard Whitey
<eel...@tampabay.rr.com> posted:

>Have the rightards and humnazees forgot about the Al Gore lockbox?

I think Al Gore was lying. I mean, there's a box, it's locked, but
there was never anything in it.

Hey! Look over there!


Oops, you fell for it again.

>Have they forgotten that Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget?

And a recession. And the bin Laden problem. And a degraded
military. And a bureaucracy rife with corruption and incompetence.

MikeSoja

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:22:03 AM3/2/05
to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:45:03 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net>
posted:

>MikeSoja wrote:

>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:23:03 GMT, Rightard Whitey
>> <eel...@tampabay.rr.com> posted:

>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>>>> The fund is not in good shape....in fact, there is no fund.

>>>> The management of the fund is non-existant. Should a private


>>>> pension fund loan itself its assests and then spend them the
>>>> managers would be in jail so fast your head would spin.

>>> There would be some money if Bush hadn't pillaged the lock box to pay
>>> for his Iraq War. There was money in the SS fund when Bush took
>>> office.

>> Yer lying. There hasn't been any money in the fund since the 1940s.

>> Today's Wall Street Journal states, "During the 1950s, 1960s, and
>> early 1970s, surplus payroll taxes were used to finance benefit
>> increases. Since the 1980s, surplus payroll taxes have been used to
>> finance expansions in government activities unrelated to Social
>> Security. The fact that Treasury bills representing surplus revenues
>> are printed up in Parkersburg, W.Va., and placed in a 'trust fund'
>> does not mean that the government has created a financial asset.
>> Instead, it signifies only that the government has counted the money
>> twice: once as an additional outlay and once as an addition to
>> Social Security's assets. A financial 'two-fer' that would be
>> illegal if used by a private corporation."


>You propose that the US Treasury will default on $1.6 trillion of their
>notes?

Add it to the fricking national debt, where it should have been all
along. But for god's sake, if the system can't be phased out
entirely, immediately start diverting as big a portion of current
Social Security taxes as possible away from anywhere that Congress
can get its hands on it, preferably into the hands of those whose
retirements it actually represents. Otherwise, that $1.6 trillion
hole is just going to grow and grow and grow.

The stupid Dems are doing everything they can to pretend that there
is no crisis in Social Security, but it may actually already be too
late.

Jeffrey Scott Linder

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:48:23 AM3/2/05
to
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

No emergency? WHere is the US going to get the cash in 13 years when
SS starts paying out more than it takes in?

>There are only Bush,Jr lies to distract us from the mess in Iraq

< yawn >

JSL

Sid9

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 8:53:49 AM3/2/05
to


There is no crisis in SS.
That's a Bush,jr lie to distract from two things.

1. The failure and on going mess in Iraq
2. His mismanagement of government finances.

The government will repay the money owed to SS recipients.
The government has never defaulted on its obligations.
The US governmemt will never default on its obligations.


Sid9

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 9:04:19 AM3/2/05
to
MikeSoja wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:57:26 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net>
> posted:
>
>> Bush,jr is a liar, as usual.
>
> He's a politician. If you want an honest person to run your life,
> quit delegating the authority to politicians.
>
>> True, there's no money in the trust fund.....only $1.6 trillion in
>> treasury bonds.
>
> It's like writing yourself a check for money that's already been
> spent. The only way you can cash it is to steal the money from
> someone else. That's what the U.S. government is going to have to
> do.
>
>> Is Bush,Jr, liar, proposing that the the government default on
>> repaying those bonds?
>
> Of course not, but where do you think the money is going to come
> from to buy those "bonds" back? And how many more people are piling
> into the system every day, people who are also going to want to be
> paid back all the money they will "contribute" to their retirements?
>
>
> Mike Soja
>

It's not at all as you and the Republicans describe it.
The SSA trust fund which own treasury bonds holds the money on behalf of the
SS recipients.
Bush,jr runs the government and his war on credit.
Soon it will be time for payback.
Republican are desperately looking for a way to renege


Sid9

unread,
Mar 2, 2005, 9:06:22 AM3/2/05