PDA

View Full Version : Why do Liberals...


BigMeatballDave
02-13-2005, 04:50 PM
...or anyone else oppose SS privatization? I'd like an explanation. I'd like to think the SS I've already paid into will be there when I need it, but its not. I'm willing to give up what I already paid in, just so I can stop paying into that and put it somewhere else...

alnorth
02-13-2005, 04:55 PM
The worst thing that could happen to them, politically speaking, is to reform social security to the point where it is basically not needed anymore, where personal accounts invested conservatively can take care of everything. If people are not dependant on SS benifits to live, then how are they going to frighten them into voting Democratic by claiming that the GOP is out to steal their checks away?

They are still pissed off about Welfare reform, they arent about to make a mistake that stupid again.

jiveturkey
02-13-2005, 05:12 PM
I'm a Dem and I support privatization. It took a little convincing but it makes more sense in the long run.

So far I haven't had many problems with the way the 2nd term is going and I had plenty of doubts. My 401k taking off doesn't hurt either.

BigMeatballDave
02-13-2005, 05:17 PM
Actually, I shouldn't have asked the question in reference to liberals. Some libs may support it...

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2005, 05:18 PM
Because their stupid that's why.

BigMeatballDave
02-13-2005, 05:24 PM
Because their stupid that's why.
ROFL

redbrian
02-13-2005, 05:37 PM
1) Because they know what’s best for the masses, and must control every aspect of the American peoples lives.

2) It would remove money from the trust fund, (in other words T-Bills), which means they would have less money to spend on their favorite redistribution of money scheme (which means less money lining the pockets of bureaucrats).

RINGLEADER
02-13-2005, 07:16 PM
I've been trying to get Jaz to explain why he changed his position on privatized social security from last year but all he does is make comments about social security taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor, that it's really a mandatory retirement insurance program and that if we had only listened to Alan Greenspan it would be solvent. He also pointed to a Paul Krugman article (that Krugman later had to revise because it was so poorly written) as evidence that Bush was baiting and switching people.

Still hasn't explained why he's against it though...besides it being from Bush.

Cochise
02-13-2005, 07:31 PM
I've been trying to get Jaz to explain why he changed his position on privatized social security from last year but all he does is make comments about social security taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor, that it's really a mandatory retirement insurance program and that if we had only listened to Alan Greenspan it would be solvent. He also pointed to a Paul Krugman article (that Krugman later had to revise because it was so poorly written) as evidence that Bush was baiting and switching people.

Still hasn't explained why he's against it though...besides it being from Bush.

I dunno, I think most of them realize how in favor of it the general public is and know when to get on board. Apparently there are still some who missed the bus.

Lefty_the_Right
02-13-2005, 07:33 PM
Because the administrative costs are 25% cheaper when you aren't dealing with a profit motive.

After all, do you really want something that you are going to depend on for your financial security to be based on a profit motive?

Like your fire and police protection?

It sounds great until you think about it in real world terms.

Like Enron, Worldcom, and the Great Depression.

There is a reason that it was created in the first place.
Greed, and the fact that not everyone is a great whiz at accounting and "betting" on the stock market.

It isn't any mystery to my why ENRON and the pensions that were lost because of it (Like the teachers pension that Jeb Bush bought Enron stock all the way down on and lost MILLIONS for the teachers) is NEVER mentioned by the talking heads pushing Bush's plan.

But the rest you yokels, what's your excuse?
Are you on the Bush payroll too?

jAZ
02-13-2005, 07:39 PM
I've been trying to get Jaz to explain why he changed his position on privatized social security from last year but all he does is (blah, blah)
...
Still hasn't explained why he's against it though...besides it being from Bush.
It's amazing your power to ignore reality and pretend that history never existed. Too bad this board has a history that makes you look like a sad, lying man.

Bear in mind that this was in direct response to a RL post. Not something he likely never read. But something he almost certainly read long before lying about it in the post quoted above.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2271720&postcount=43
...I'll take the time to clarify my opinions so that RL doesn't have to feel sad.

1) I support private savings accounts. Always have (since I learned of the idea)... always will.
2) The devil is in the details. In this case, the details that I object to is any attempt to replace SS with private accounts. There is a movement to do just that and it is driving the push toward private accounts. I'll ride the wave only so far.
3) As far as a private account structure that I have always supported, it is one that allows me to set aside ADDITIONAL dollars.
4) I don't support phasing out SS or allowing the well off to opt out of payments into the SS system.

SS is a conservative, low risk, low return baseline mandatory retirement savings plan. It is a cash drain from the higher income to the lower income people. This pisses off people who "want to keep their own money" and they are pushing to elimintate that aspect of SS and replace it with a system that "lets them keep their own money".

The problem is that much like your standard car insurance policy, SS is a wealth/risk redistribution system. And tinkering with that redistribution structure ($$ from wealthy to poor), and changing it to a "you get back what you pay in" system is unworkable in the big picture.

Sure it works when Joe a 30-year old Sprint network admin making 65K/year wants to put his money away. But it doesn't work for Julie a 39 year old hairdresser making 22/year.

The short sighted view of those favoring phasing out the traditional SS system is that every dollar of Joe's money that goes to Judy today will go to Joe instead.

Judy won't make that money back anywhere, and will upon retirement have less to live on, than she would otherwise have had with the contributions from Joe helping out.

Where does Judy get that lost money? She was going to be living month to month even WITH some of the assitance from Joe. Now she has LESS money to live on after retirement.

It won't cost her anyless to live in retirement, she won't be getting sick less. She will instead be forced to make up those dollars by using public services (paid for by a different tax source paid into by the same Joe).

Only now it will be costing Joe additional dollars because instead of going to her Dr who won't see her because she can't pay the co-pay, she will go to the emergency room because they won't refuse her for non-payment.

That unstructured part of the system will increase costs in the log run, because they are outside-the-intended-system costs.

Keeping SS intact as it stands keeps the pooling of community premiums (just like in insurance).

I want to add a private account ALONGSIDE existing social security. My understanding is that is the original view of SS at the time that it was created. It wasn't intended to be the only retirement system, but the lowest risk part of a larger retirement plan.

Adding private accounts alongside existing SS helps to complete that system.

Replacing SS with private accounts just causes a different mess.

Rausch
02-13-2005, 07:48 PM
But the rest you yokels, what's your excuse?
Are you on the Bush payroll too?

Funny you mention that.

It takes a real idiot to trust the government with their retirement money after watching the spend-fest of the last 4 years...

jAZ
02-13-2005, 08:04 PM
Funny you mention that.

It takes a real idiot to trust the government with their retirement money after watching the spend-fest of the last 4 years...
Watch your words.

As you know, our nation is in debt up to our ears thanks to Bush.

That debt comes from people (foreign and domestic) who "trust the goverment with the (investment) money".

We as a nation depend upon the "full faith and credit" of the United States government.

If you start dissing those who trust social security simply because the investment manager is a federal employee, you are also dissing all those people who trust the treasury because the investment manager is the federal government.

We need those people to trust us, because we need to borrow a shit-ton of money from them to pay for all those tax cuts during war-time.

And the ultimate irony is that Bush, RL, et al are running around saying that the SS treasury is gone, that nothing is there, that the system is insolvent. All of this talking down of the present circumstances comes just before Bush and the Republican party are going to have to borrow a shit-ton-MORE money if they want to be able to implement their SS replacement.

Sorta a catch 22.

Kinda like saying that SS will fail while using pessimistic economic forecasts. But when proposing your alternative, you base it upon optimistic forecasts.

Shhh... it will be OK as long as no one catches on.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 08:21 PM
Because the administrative costs are 25% cheaper when you aren't dealing with a profit motive.

After all, do you really want something that you are going to depend on for your financial security to be based on a profit motive?

Like your fire and police protection?

It sounds great until you think about it in real world terms.

Like Enron, Worldcom, and the Great Depression.

There is a reason that it was created in the first place.
Greed, and the fact that not everyone is a great whiz at accounting and "betting" on the stock market.

It isn't any mystery to my why ENRON and the pensions that were lost because of it (Like the teachers pension that Jeb Bush bought Enron stock all the way down on and lost MILLIONS for the teachers) is NEVER mentioned by the talking heads pushing Bush's plan.

But the rest you yokels, what's your excuse?
Are you on the Bush payroll too?
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh?

jAZ
02-13-2005, 08:26 PM
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh?
So you are saying that there more than 2 possible choices when considering the future of SS?

It's not just the Republican phase-out plan or keeping things exactly as they are today?

There's some other option that Republicans don't want to discuss?

Raiderhader
02-13-2005, 08:30 PM
Because the administrative costs are 25% cheaper when you aren't dealing with a profit motive.

After all, do you really want something that you are going to depend on for your financial security to be based on a profit motive?

Like your fire and police protection?

It sounds great until you think about it in real world terms.

Like Enron, Worldcom, and the Great Depression.

There is a reason that it was created in the first place.
Greed, and the fact that not everyone is a great whiz at accounting and "betting" on the stock market.

It isn't any mystery to my why ENRON and the pensions that were lost because of it (Like the teachers pension that Jeb Bush bought Enron stock all the way down on and lost MILLIONS for the teachers) is NEVER mentioned by the talking heads pushing Bush's plan.

But the rest you yokels, what's your excuse?
Are you on the Bush payroll too?


Oh boohoo, people would have to actually live life on their own instead of having Big Brother holding their hand and walking them through life.

If you do not want to be your own person and rely upon yourself, fine, but you should not expect me and the rest of your fellow citizens to take care of you. Go find yourself a sugar momma or daddy to take care of you. Of course, I expect you'll want a government program to help you find that person........

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 08:31 PM
So you are saying that there more than 2 possible choices when considering the future of SS?

It's not just the Republican phase-out plan or keeping things exactly as they are today?

There's some other option that Republicans don't want to discuss?
Again, why doesn't the Democrat System of government insist on investing and using SS? And why do you keep dodging the question?

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 08:45 PM
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh? Again, why doesn't the Democrat System of government insist on investing and using SS? And why do you keep dodging the question?Seriously, WTF is it with you lately? You're turning into someone who is *consistently* inaccurate in stating what are supposedly facts. I think you have a certain reputation on the board, and this is going to start undermining your credibility if you aren't more careful.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.

Status: False.

....

"It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. They pay into the fund just as most everyone else does. (A few odd exceptions to the Social Security program still exist, both inside and outside of government.)"

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 08:50 PM
Seriously, WTF is it with you lately? You're turning into someone who is *consistently* inaccurate in stating what are supposedly facts. I think you have a certain reputation on the board, and this is going to start undermining your credibility if you aren't more careful.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.

Status: False.

....

"It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. They pay into the fund just as most everyone else does. (A few odd exceptions to the Social Security program still exist, both inside and outside of government.)"

Complete your research, and attach an apology afterward. Any member of Congress elected prior to 1983 is exempt from the act with their pensions prior to that date and is part of a lavish pension package not available to the common government worker.

With Ted, I'll be there until I die, Kennedy, you should have known this.

jAZ
02-13-2005, 08:52 PM
Again, why doesn't the Democrat System of government insist on investing and using SS? And why do you keep dodging the question?
Can you ask that again in using english? I'll be happy to answer.

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 08:53 PM
One answer to the question is this -- the Democrats wish to win political points with voters by being able to claim that they were the "defenders of Social Security" or whatever.

Ths involves several elements, not least of which is that older people tend to go vote more often than younger people.

There's also the wish (realistic or not) of liberals to try to retain as much as possible of the New Deal and its legacy. Social Security is at the heart of the New Deal, and is one of the core New Deal programs and has generally been, I think, a very successful one.

Another factor are genuine disputes over how much trouble Social Security is in, and how urgent the need is to try to revamp things. While I'm in the "sooner is better" camp, reasonable minds may differ on this. Arguably, Social Security was in worse shape in the early 80s when the last dramatic reform was undertaken.

Finally, there is considerably uncertainty regarding how the new privatized system would work. Guaranteed floor of benefits? What if a persons investments go belly-up? How much money are third parties (mutual fund companies, insurance companies, etc.) going to get out of the system? If individuals are forced to buy annuities, then can the money really be handed down to future generations as Bush has suggested? Are we going to fund this with even MORE federal debt?

I'm in favor of SS reform, as I've frequently stated, but BushCo and the Republicans have yet to offer many specifics in their broad proposal as to how the new plan will function. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats aren't willing to support a thus-far vague plan, nor do they trust this President who speaks frequently of bipartisanship and trying to unite America, etc., but invariably his actions belie those words.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 08:57 PM
One answer to the question is this -- the Democrats wish to win political points with voters by being able to claim that they were the "defenders of Social Security" or whatever.



It is not "one" answer, it is the MAIN answer. Along with they would lose the ever popular tactic of "They are going to take your social security" if you vote for them.

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 08:58 PM
Complete your research, and attach an apology afterward. Any member of Congress elected prior to 1983 is exempt from the act with their pensions prior to that date and is part of a lavish pension package not available to the common government worker.

With Ted, I'll be there until I die, Kennedy, you should have known this.

No apology needed or forthcoming. See bolded language in your quote below.


Originally Posted by KCWolfman
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh?


The above alone takes your statement beyond normal debating. But you're statement above -- that "any member of Congress elected prior to 1983...." is also flat wrong.

See below:

"It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983: In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security. "

It gets fairly complicated for those elected prior to '84, but they are still required to pay into Social Security. See also this write up of how it all works.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030825.htm

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 09:00 PM
It is not "one" answer, it is the MAIN answer. Along with they would lose the ever popular tactic of "They are going to take your social security" if you vote for them.

That's your opinion. Not mine. If you think something like 280 Democrats from across the country that serve in the House and Senate all have some kind of Borg-like mind-link going on, then I suppose that's fine. I never see things nearly as black and white as that.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 09:02 PM
That's your opinion. Not mine. If you think something like 280 Democrats from across the country that serve in the House and Senate all have some kind of Borg-like mind-link going on, then I suppose that's fine. I never see things nearly as black and white as that.
So there is no Platform by the Reps or Dems as a unit? After all, that would represent a "Borg like mindlink", wouldn't it? It is a common tactic consistently used by the left. Hell, Al Gore even alluded to it during his campaign. To act as if it is not done by the Dem Community at large is acting like cops don't get free coffee at Quicktrip because it isn't legal.

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 09:06 PM
So there is no Platform by the Reps or Dems as a unit? After all, that would represent a "Borg like mindlink", wouldn't it? It is a common tactic consistently used by the left. Hell, Al Gore even alluded to it during his campaign. To act as if it is not done by the Dem Community at large is acting like cops don't get free coffee at Quicktrip because it isn't legal.

There are platforms and there are differing reasons among Democrats for supporting that platform. If you think there's ONE reason the Democrats do anything -- to win votes by preying upon the stupid and their irrational fears, that's fine. The same has been said of Republicans. I happen to think more highly of both parties, actually.

jAZ
02-13-2005, 09:11 PM
Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep?
(insert KCW's apology here)

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 09:27 PM
There are platforms and there are differing reasons among Democrats for supporting that platform. If you think there's ONE reason the Democrats do anything -- to win votes by preying upon the stupid and their irrational fears, that's fine. The same has been said of Republicans. I happen to think more highly of both parties, actually.
I never stated "one", I stated "main".

And you are correct, both parties are guilty. SS is the crutch of the Dems, the Reps have a few of their own.

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 09:27 PM
No apology needed or forthcoming. See bolded language in your quote below.


Originally Posted by KCWolfman
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh?


The above alone takes your statement beyond normal debating. But you're statement above -- that "any member of Congress elected prior to 1983...." is also flat wrong.

See below:

"It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983: In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security. "

It gets fairly complicated for those elected prior to '84, but they are still required to pay into Social Security. See also this write up of how it all works.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030825.htm



[crickets...]

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 09:29 PM
I never stated "one", I stated "main".

And you are correct, both parties are guilty. SS is the crutch of the Dems, the Reps have a few of their own.

Main? Maybe. I honestly don't know as I haven't followed what the Democrats are saying as of yet.

I also think it's premature to assume the Democrats will block every measure of SS reform. Until a more specific proposal is working through Congress, I dunno if the Democrats will try to craft an alternative plan.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 09:31 PM
I never stated "one", I stated "main".

.

Crickets indeed

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 09:41 PM
Crickets indeed

I replied to your statement. You have blithely ignored my correction of your seriously mistaken statements regarding how SS works for members of Congress. You requested an apology the first time I pointed out your mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to provide the mea culpa due when it's shown that it was in fact you that was wrong all along.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:00 PM
I replied to your statement. You have blithely ignored my correction of your seriously mistaken statements regarding how SS works for members of Congress. You requested an apology the first time I pointed out your mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to provide the mea culpa due when it's shown that it was in fact you that was wrong all along.
Whatever. I was incorrect in assuming the program was still in effect today.

However, you did not address the fact that you quoted me erroneously and stated that I said "The one reason" when describing the Democrat charade of SS. If you believe you addressed your incorrect statement, you are wrong again.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:00 PM
I replied to your statement. You have blithely ignored my correction of your seriously mistaken statements regarding how SS works for members of Congress. You requested an apology the first time I pointed out your mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to provide the mea culpa due when it's shown that it was in fact you that was wrong all along.

Don't hold your breath. While Wolfman is usually a quality poster, his main weakness is an almost total inability to admit when he's wrong. It's happened occasionally (although he'll usually try to minimize the extent of his error in future portrayals), but not often. For instance, see this thread just this last weekend (and still on the front page, lest someone try to claim he didn't see it) http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001 Look at DanT's post.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:01 PM
Don't hold your breath. While Wolfman is usually a quality poster, his main weakness is an almost total inability to admit when he's wrong. It's happened occasionally (although he'll usually try to minimize the extent of his error in future portrayals), but not often. For instance, see this thread just this last weekend (and still on the front page, lest someone try to claim he didn't see it) http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001 Look at DanT's post.
Damn, someone looks stupid checking into my character after I proved them wrong with my statement below.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:05 PM
Damn, someone looks stupid checking into my character after I proved them wrong with my statement below.

Ha!

It's happened occasionally (although he'll usually try to minimize the extent of his error in future portrayals)

Whatever. I was incorrect in assuming the program was still in effect today

What about your gross mischaraterization of the article in the other thread? I love how you changed the title of the story in your link to it.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:06 PM
I replied to your statement. You have blithely ignored my correction of your seriously mistaken statements regarding how SS works for members of Congress. You requested an apology the first time I pointed out your mistake. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to provide the mea culpa due when it's shown that it was in fact you that was wrong all along.
However, I am also willing to bet that the rate of increase of pay for the House and Senate are well above the 6% we are charged and thus offset.

Kinda like the Hollywood types saying they don't mind paying more in taxes when they just have to ask for a couple mil more for the next film they make.

Amnorix
02-13-2005, 10:08 PM
Whatever. I was incorrect in assuming the program was still in effect today.

However, you did not address the fact that you quoted me erroneously and stated that I said "The one reason" when describing the Democrat charade of SS. If you believe you addressed your incorrect statement, you are wrong again.

Please. My "error" was part of normal argument give and take. Yours was in accurately stating how a particular Federal program has worked for TWENTY years.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:09 PM
While Wolfman is usually a quality poster, his main weakness is an almost total inability to admit when he's wrong.

If you are keeping count, you are horribly wrong. Two statements were incorrect.

However, I have admitted error on multiple occassions. I have even started threads regarding the errors. Hell, I even admitted to you when we discussed the changing of defintions in law that I was in error.

Perhaps it is less my "inability" and more your misperception? That happens when you constantly stand on the ball of your toes waiting to jump.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:10 PM
Damn, someone looks stupid checking into my character after I proved them wrong with my statement below.

Further, it's not like I "checked into your character," most posters here are aware of your style, which usually involves a barrage of nit-picking questions directed toward those who disagree with you, insisting on precise answers, while rarely returning the favor.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:11 PM
Please. My "error" was part of normal argument give and take. Yours was in accurately stating how a particular Federal program has worked for TWENTY years.
You quoted me incorrectly.

This is actually silly. If you feel justified in your statement above, I have no problem looking past it.

I don't mind admitting I was wrong. I thought the program was still in effect.

There are more interesting issues to me than whether you interpreted my statement correctly or not. Just don't whine about me doing so when you blatantly do the same.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:12 PM
Further, it's not like I "checked into your character," most posters here are aware of your style, which usually involves a barrage of nit-picking questions directed toward those who disagree with you, insisting on precise answers, while rarely returning the favor.
Kind of ironic with your first post on this thread, don't you think?>

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:13 PM
Kind of ironic with your first post on this thread, don't you think?>

Sucks when you have to take your own medicine, don't it?

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:14 PM
Sucks when you have to take your own medicine, don't it?
Ahh, the "you did it first" excuse. No wonder you want into law so badly.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:17 PM
If you are keeping count, you are horribly wrong. Two statements were incorrect.

However, I have admitted error on multiple occassions. I have even started threads regarding the errors. Hell, I even admitted to you when we discussed the changing of defintions in law that I was in error.

Perhaps it is less my "inability" and more your misperception? That happens when you constantly stand on the ball of your toes waiting to jump.

Two statements in the past weekend. How many threads regarding those errors have you started in the same timeframe? And as to the definitions, you referred to "Boozer finding only a couple of isolated incidents that words had changed definitions" (or some similar words, search is down) in a later thread about the subject, when in fact, I showed you how plentiful and easy it was to find chaning definitions. Goes to my "although he'll usually try to minimize the extent of his error in future portrayals" statement.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:19 PM
Two statements in the past weekend. How many threads regarding those errors have you started in the same timeframe? And as to the definitions, you referred to "Boozer finding only a couple of isolated incidents that words had changed definitions" (or some similar words, search is down) in a later thread about the subject, when in fact, I showed you how plentiful and easy it was to find chaning definitions. Goes to my "although he'll usually try to minimize the extent of his error in future portrayals" statement.
You mean your CYA statement when proven wrong.

jAZ
02-13-2005, 10:19 PM
Kind of ironic with your first post on this thread, don't you think?
But 100% accurate none-the-less.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:21 PM
Ahh, the "you did it first" excuse. No wonder you want into law so badly.

I don't attack your vocation. I'm curious, though, on the other thread when you typed in "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder" as the link title, where'd you get that from? Could you not tell that wasn't the case from the article, or were you deliberately lying?

Rausch
02-13-2005, 10:25 PM
Watch your words.

As you know, our nation is in debt up to our ears thanks to Bush.

No doubt about that...

That debt comes from people (foreign and domestic) who "trust the goverment with the (investment) money".

We as a nation depend upon the "full faith and credit" of the United States government.

If you start dissing those who trust social security simply because the investment manager is a federal employee, you are also dissing all those people who trust the treasury because the investment manager is the federal government.

Yeah, but I get to make the dicision of investing with the govt. No one makes me buy govt bonds or the like.

SS forces me to pay in, with no say in where it goes.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:35 PM
I don't attack your vocation. I'm curious, though, on the other thread when you typed in "Eason Jordan Claims Israelis Targeted Journalists for Murder" as the link title, where'd you get that from? Could you not tell that wasn't the case from the article, or were you deliberately lying?
Oh, so we can only attack certain arenas and aspects of one another. I missed that memo - mea culpa. I will try not to minimize the error.


Yeah, I screwed up on the Jordan article. I trusted an incorrect source and ran with it. Jordan's actions today don't minimize (is that sufficient?) my error at all.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:38 PM
Oh, so we can only attack certain arenas and aspects of one another. I missed that memo - mea culpa. I will try not to minimize the error.

No, but it's telling that you respond to specific allegations against yourself with a general slur against my chosen profession, hoping to imply something evil about myself.


Yeah, I screwed up on the Jordan article. I trusted an incorrect source and ran with it. Jordan's actions today don't minimize (is that sufficient?) my error at all.

Hell, for all I know, Jordan did claim the Israelis targeted journalists. I initially trusted your post without clicking on the link, and wasn't made aware until DanT's post. Unfortunately, I can't be that trusting anymore.

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:41 PM
No, but it's telling that you respond to specific allegations against yourself with a general slur against my chosen profession, hoping to imply something evil about myself.



Hell, for all I know, Jordan did claim the Israelis targed journalists. I initially trusted your post without clicking on the link, and wasn't made aware until DanT's post. Unfortunately, I can't be that trusting anymore.
Wow, now you know what I hope for. You sure you don't want to be a psychologist instead? I didn't hope for anything. I was just pointing out that your childish response was belittling of yourself - I am sorry I attached humor to it. The next time I will be more precise and succint. Perhaps something on the line of "I used to be able to have a reasonable conversation with you. Due to your immature response, I can't be that trusting anymore".

Read away, McFee, That is why I put the links there. I was wrong, I can live with that. Evidently, you can't.

Boozer
02-13-2005, 10:42 PM
Wow, now you know what I hope for. You sure you don't want to be a psychologist instead? I didn't hope for anything. I was just pointing out that your childish response was belittling of yourself - I am sorry I attached humor to it. The next time I will be more precise and succint. Perhaps something on the line of "I used to be able to have a reasonable conversation with you. Due to your immature response, I can't be that trusting anymore".

Read away, McFee, That is why I put the links there. I was wrong, I can live with that. Evidently, you can't.

Are you taking your ball and going home, too?

KCWolfman
02-13-2005, 10:44 PM
Are you taking your ball and going home, too?
Not at all, bigger whiners than you have tried and run off themselves.

jAZ
02-13-2005, 11:48 PM
Simple question Jaz; Why are our elected officials opted out of the system if it is the best for all?
Who says "it is the best for all"? That's a ridiculous statement for anyone (including yourself) to make. I certainly wouldn't defend your words.

It's clearly less good for some... more good for others.

Not to mention that you seem to be victim of the "congress doesn't pay into SS" myth. All members of congress since 1983/4 participate in SS. Those who had programs in place at the time the rules were changed, were grandfathered in.

Those people are among those who it is "less good for".

KCWolfman
02-14-2005, 06:14 AM
Who says "it is the best for all"? That's a ridiculous statement for anyone (including yourself) to make. I certainly wouldn't defend your words.

It's clearly less good for some... more good for others.

Not to mention that you seem to be victim of the "congress doesn't pay into SS" myth. All members of congress since 1983/4 participate in SS. Those who had programs in place at the time the rules were changed, were grandfathered in.

Those people are among those who it is "less good for".
Again, I bet their vote based increase in pay has far exceeded the mandatory 6% stolen from the rest of us annually.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 03:18 PM
I seem to have missed your apology, KC.

But back the subject at hand.
Why would you trust Ken Lay more than your postman or fireman to protect your investment in SS?

Saulbadguy
02-16-2005, 03:58 PM
I don't know. What will people have after they lose their SS money after investing it poorly? Probably more govt. assistance.

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 04:02 PM
Because the administrative costs are 25% cheaper when you aren't dealing with a profit motive.

After all, do you really want something that you are going to depend on for your financial security to be based on a profit motive?

Like your fire and police protection?

It sounds great until you think about it in real world terms.

Like Enron, Worldcom, and the Great Depression.

There is a reason that it was created in the first place.
Greed, and the fact that not everyone is a great whiz at accounting and "betting" on the stock market.

It isn't any mystery to my why ENRON and the pensions that were lost because of it (Like the teachers pension that Jeb Bush bought Enron stock all the way down on and lost MILLIONS for the teachers) is NEVER mentioned by the talking heads pushing Bush's plan.

But the rest you yokels, what's your excuse?
Are you on the Bush payroll too?


The plans put forth don't allow you to invest in individual stocks. If you look at the private account programs that have been around in a couple counties for 25 years they invested primarily in annuities, life insurance and some bonds. Super-safe investments that have netted almost 9% during that time frame.

People who claim retirements are going to be wasted by investing in things other than low-interest Treasuries just don't know what they're talking about because that isn't what is being proposed. They're also looking past historical and real-world evidence that shows there are other investment tools that have a greater return rate without much more risk. Certainly not as risky as social security (which is upfront about it's dismal performance and its promise to not be totally there when I - and most of you - retire).

Saulbadguy
02-16-2005, 04:03 PM
Sounds good then, as long as that is enforced.

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 04:06 PM
It's amazing your power to ignore reality and pretend that history never existed. Too bad this board has a history that makes you look like a sad, lying man.

Bear in mind that this was in direct response to a RL post. Not something he likely never read. But something he almost certainly read long before lying about it in the post quoted above.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2271720&postcount=43


ROFL

Where does Bush say he's going to eliminate social security again Jaz?

Why did your position on private accounts change from last year Jaz?

How does social security impact the wealthy more than the poor Jaz?

How do you pay to fund social security accounts beyond 2018 Jaz?

Your response doesn't address any of the pertinent questions and, in fact, merely shows that you don't know what you're talking about regarding this subject.

How you debate this issue with a straight face when you claimed you had no evidence to support your belief (stated multiple times) that Bush wants to eliminate social security beyond some unexplained knowledge that it is what Bush is promising his "Republican friends" behind closed doors remains a (funny) mystery.

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 04:08 PM
And the ultimate irony is that Bush, RL, et al are running around saying that the SS treasury is gone, that nothing is there, that the system is insolvent. All of this talking down of the present circumstances comes just before Bush and the Republican party are going to have to borrow a shit-ton-MORE money if they want to be able to implement their SS replacement.


OK, Einstein, tell me where the SS treasury that you insinuate exists somewhere resides.

It exists on paper, has been spent, and would require trillions to repay. Point me to any reputable news source that says otherwise.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:10 PM
And what about the people who lost EVERYTHING when Enron when down?

Like the teachers union in Florida?
There is a reason that SS was created in the first palce.

And when you neglect to mention the stock crash of 1929, you are being dishonest.

Cause and effect.
There is no garantee on the stock market.

If you invest in treasury bonds, you are betting on the US government still being here when you retire.

If the US government isn't here, I really doubt your stock investments will be worth much either.

KCFalcon59
02-16-2005, 04:12 PM
And what about the people who lost EVERYTHING when Enron when down?

Like the teachers union in Florida?
There is a reason that SS was created in the first palce.

And when you neglect to mention the stock crash of 1929, you are being dishonest.

Cause and effect.
There is no garantee on the stock market.

If you invest in treasury bonds, you are betting on the US government still being here when you retire.

If the US government isn't here, I really doubt your stock investments will be worth much either.

Alarmist?

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 04:13 PM
No apology needed or forthcoming. See bolded language in your quote below.


Originally Posted by KCWolfman
Is Tom Dasshole on the Bush payroll? If not, why doesn't he subsidize SS? Why doesn't any other Democrat Senator or Rep? I guess you are comfortable with them telling you that they know what is best and they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment as the common man, eh?


The above alone takes your statement beyond normal debating. But you're statement above -- that "any member of Congress elected prior to 1983...." is also flat wrong.

See below:

"It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983: In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security. "

It gets fairly complicated for those elected prior to '84, but they are still required to pay into Social Security. See also this write up of how it all works.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030825.htm



So if Wolfman had said "the vast majority of congressmen and women do not pay into social security" he would be correct?

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:14 PM
And what about the people who lost EVERYTHING when Enron when down?

Like the teachers union in Florida?
There is a reason that SS was created in the first palce.

And when you neglect to mention the stock crash of 1929, you are being dishonest.

Cause and effect.
There is no garantee on the stock market.

If you invest in treasury bonds, you are betting on the US government still being here when you retire.

If the US government isn't here, I really doubt your stock investments will be worth much either.

Therein lies the difference. In my mind, they gambled and lost. Too bad for them.

As a conservative, I want the absolute minimum government involvement in my life, especially when it comes to my finances. I want to decide for myself whether or not to take that risk.

Lefty_the_Right
02-16-2005, 04:21 PM
That is fine and dandy, but you live in a society.
And that requires you to make some sacrifices to the greater good.

If you don't like that, then you could move somewhere that won't require you to make them.

But then you won't have all of the great things that America has to offer.

The reason America is considered so well off is that we don't have the young and old wanding the streets looking for food or handouts.

Would you rather that America looks like Canada, or Mexico?

And no one is stopping you from investing in land or an IRA.
You guys make it sound like you don't have any options for further saving.

And it really makes me doubt your sincerety on the issue.

Amnorix
02-16-2005, 04:22 PM
So if Wolfman had said "the vast majority of congressmen and women do not pay into social security" he would be correct?

err...no, unless "the vast majority" of congresspeople (?) were elected before 1984.

Donger
02-16-2005, 04:28 PM
And no one is stopping you from investing in land or an IRA.
You guys make it sound like you don't have any options for further saving.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that since I'm required by law to "contribute" to SS, I don't have that money to invest as I see fit.

I don't like that.

If you do, fine. After all, the federal government's great at handling money, right?

BIG_DADDY
02-17-2005, 01:13 AM
That is fine and dandy, but you live in a society.
And that requires you to make some sacrifices to the greater good.

If you don't like that, then you could move somewhere that won't require you to make them.

.

somebody shoot this POS

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 12:38 PM
What this all boils down to is 'Freedom of Choice'. I thought Dems/Libs were all about this? All I want is the freedom to choose where I put my money. Private accounts do not have to be mandatory, and neither should me paying into SS...

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:40 PM
Does it ever get old typing with your "gun" in your hand, "big" daddy?

Your aim is probably as good as your intellect, so as long as I stay 30 feet from you, I think I'll be ok.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:41 PM
So would you "conservatives" say the same thing about the defense budget?

Can liberals get a check box for how much we want to spend on Star Wars, or nuclear weapons?

Would you also be in favor of that?

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 12:43 PM
Star Wars, or nuclear weapons?

Would you also be in favor of that?
:spock: WTF? This is 2005, not 1985...

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry ,what is the new name?

Missile Defense Shield?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:50 PM
You know, the system that they just tested a couple of days ago?

The one that cost $55 million dollars and didn't work because the interceptor didn't launch?

You haven't heard of it?

Chief Henry
02-17-2005, 12:51 PM
[QUOTE=Lefty_the_Right]And what about the people who lost EVERYTHING when Enron when down?

QUOTE]

(cough) Global Crossing

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 12:53 PM
You know, the system that they just tested a couple of days ago?

The one that cost $55 million dollars and didn't work because the interceptor didn't launch?

You haven't heard of it?Why on earth would you have a problem with our gov't spending to protect its citizens?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 12:55 PM
Yeah, another great example Henry, thanks!
Why would anyone trust a large corporation?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:05 PM
BigChiefDave
PHUQ OFF!
--------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
You know, the system that they just tested a couple of days ago?

The one that cost $55 million dollars and didn't work because the interceptor didn't launch?

You haven't heard of it?

Why on earth would you have a problem with our gov't spending to protect its citizens?



I don't know...
Why DON"T you like Social Security and Medicare?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:08 PM
Sorry, you walked right into that one. LOL

Chief Henry
02-17-2005, 01:10 PM
Yeah, another great example Henry, thanks!
Why would anyone trust a large corporation?

Your propaganda laden spin with grossly misleading rhetoric is so pathetic. Because the options being talked about would be mutual funds and bank accounts. Go ahead and keep stating that the sky is going to fall down. Its done you alot of good so far. We understand that your trying to prove how smart you are with all of these post.

Go check out the history of well managed, Balanced Mutual Funds. The good ones were only down about 6% in 2002, a far cry from the S-P index being down a total of 43% from from 2000-2001-2002.

Some people will hear your "shrill" comments. But well informed people
understand the problem of SS and the benefits of a good managed
balanced mutual fund.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:11 PM
So would you "conservatives" say the same thing about the defense budget?

Can liberals get a check box for how much we want to spend on Star Wars, or nuclear weapons?

Would you also be in favor of that?

When was the last time we produced a nuclear weapon?

And its SDI, FYI.

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 01:14 PM
I don't know...
Why DON"T you like Social Security and Medicare?I no longer wish to pay for other peoples retirement...

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:15 PM
Star Wars, SDI, a rose by any othe name wouldn't waste billions of dollars and fail over half of it's tests.

And the Bush adminitration is doing everything they can to make new nukes.

Don't you read the news?

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 01:15 PM
Sorry, you walked right into that one. LOLLOL SS doesn't work either...

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2005, 01:17 PM
Star Wars, SDI, a rose by any othe name wouldn't waste billions of dollars and fail over half of it's tests.

And the Bush adminitration is doing everything they can to make new nukes.

Don't you read the news?Tactical, not ICBMs...

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:18 PM
You know, the system that they just tested a couple of days ago?

The one that cost $55 million dollars and didn't work because the interceptor didn't launch?

You haven't heard of it?


Again just FYI, but the technology being used for SDI is nothing new. The HAWK missile proved it could be done in the ‘70’s.

http://www.wsmr-history.org/Photos/HawkAction2.jpg

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:19 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/07/news/nuke.html

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:19 PM
I don't know...
Why DON"T you like Social Security and Medicare?


Yeah, another great example Henry, thanks!
Why would anyone trust a large corporation?


:spock:

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:22 PM
Star Wars, SDI, a rose by any othe name wouldn't waste billions of dollars and fail over half of it's tests.

And the Bush adminitration is doing everything they can to make new nukes.

Don't you read the news?

Yes, I do read the news, but that’s not answering the question. When was the last time we produced a nuke?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:26 PM
So why can't they do it?

I know that I can shoot a bullet with a bullet in theory, but I've only seen it happen in movies.

And the bullet we are talking about will have decoys and will kill millions of people if we miss.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:28 PM
When did I say that we had?

Should I rephrase it to say "a check box for nuclear missile upkeep, and new production?"?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:32 PM
So why can't they do it?

I know that I can shoot a bullet with a bullet in theory, but I've only seen it happen in movies.

And the bullet we are talking about will have decoys and will kill millions of people if we miss.


Every engineering development program has bugs, most just don’t have political detractors latching onto every missed step as a stick to beat political opponents over the head with.
We’re still in the discovery phase, haven’t even reached alpha testing yet and some are already cry’n failure. :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:33 PM
When did I say that we had?

Should I rephrase it to say "a check box for nuclear missile upkeep, and new production?"?

You didn’t, that’s the point. I’m asking a question and you're trying not to answer.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:35 PM
You really think that no one will figure out how to beat the system?

With like say, decoys?

StcChief
02-17-2005, 01:35 PM
I'm for private SS accts.

If the money is in private accounts the DEMs/Reps have nothing to raid or ask for a loan against.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:38 PM
You really think that no one will figure out how to beat the system?

With like say, decoys?

You really think we know nothing of Counter Measures? Or Counter Counter Measures? This game is nothing new, that’s what I’m trying to point out, but to keep up with us means spending lots of money.
Stealth isn’t that hard to beat, it just takes money. Who’s spending money specifically to defeat our stealth planes?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:38 PM
Yeah, like wars in the middle east and nuclear weapons!

Woot!

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:39 PM
Yeah, like wars in the middle east and nuclear weapons!

Woot!

:spock: :bong:

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:42 PM
China and Russia, to name two.

But I'm sure that Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are thinking about it too.

After all, chaff and flares are nothing in cost compared to one AA or AG missile, right?

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 01:45 PM
I no longer wish to pay for other peoples retirement...
I no longer wish to pay for lots of government programs, but thats part of life.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:48 PM
China and Russia, to name two.

But I'm sure that Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are thinking about it too.

After all, chaff and flares are nothing in cost compared to one AA or AG missile, right?

Have they had much success with it?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 01:51 PM
I don't know, why don't we ask them to launch a nuke at us and see if we can block it.

Is this really the normal level of discourse around here?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 01:59 PM
I don't know, why don't we ask them to launch a nuke at us and see if we can block it.

Is this really the normal level of discourse around here?

If you call “normal” deflecting and not being able to give an answer, it appears “normal” for you.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't know, why don't we ask them to launch a nuke at us and see if we can block it.

Is this really the normal level of discourse around here?

Just out of curiosity, why exactly do you want to attempt to “block” an incoming ICBM with stealth? Or has your ritalin not kicked in and you forgot the conversation? :shrug:

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:06 PM
Where did stealth come in?

I think you introduced it into the conversation?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:07 PM
Where did stealth come in?

I think you introduced it into the conversation?

Yes, when posting about different technologies, then you wanted to “block” an ICBM with it.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:09 PM
I guess I didn't pick up your change of subject?

Brock
02-17-2005, 02:10 PM
I no longer wish to pay for lots of government programs, but thats part of life.

Fortunately, we have the ability to influence whether they continue or not.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:10 PM
But I certainly didn't mean to say what you seem to think I said.

Sorry for the confusion, but I didn't mean to confuse you.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:12 PM
I see where you got off track now.

I was refering to decoys for ICBM's, you were talking about stealth technology for some reason.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:17 PM
With regard to “decoys”.

You really think we know nothing of Counter Measures? Or Counter Counter Measures? This game is nothing new, that’s what I’m trying to point out, but to keep up with us means spending lots of money.
Stealth isn’t that hard to beat, it just takes money. Who’s spending money specifically to defeat our stealth planes?

At least try to keep up, mkay.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 02:17 PM
boy.. I sure am glad that SDI research didn't produce anything like this...
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html

(btw... it will be in the field by 2007)

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:21 PM
And we have lot's of neat technology from the NASA programs, but I don't see anyone living on the moon or vacationing in space.

What does one have to do with the other?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:21 PM
boy.. I sure am glad that SDI research didn't produce anything like this...
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html

(btw... it will be in the field by 2007)

Thanks Austin Chief, here’s a picture of the laser itself.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:23 PM
And none of this will stop a suitcase nuke that has been snuck into a city.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:23 PM
And we have lot's of neat technology from the NASA programs, but I don't see anyone living on the moon or vacationing in space.

What does one have to do with the other?

They’re all part of the same program brainiac, the interceptor missiles are only one phase of it.
Don’t you read the news?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:26 PM
And none of this will stop a suitcase nuke that has been snuck into a city.

Neither will not doing anything, but it does eliminate a few types of threats.
So what exactly is your complaint here, or are you just set on complaining?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:31 PM
That thing looks real portable.

After all, for an incomming nuke, it would have to be a on a plane within range of the warhead, right?

I sure hope we have enough warning to get a plane in position....

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:32 PM
I'm saying that the cost isn't worth the supposed "protection" that it is supposed to deliver.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:35 PM
Back to the subject, sort of..

Do conservatives also support putting a check box next to defense expeditures?

Brock
02-17-2005, 02:40 PM
Back to the subject, sort of..

Do conservatives also support putting a check box next to defense expeditures?

I would, if there were another check box next to "do not give any of my money to deadbeat welfare mommas".

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:43 PM
I think you mean: "hungry children under the age of nine".

Don't you?
Just to be honest...

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:44 PM
That thing looks real portable.

After all, for an incomming nuke, it would have to be a on a plane within range of the warhead, right?

I sure hope we have enough warning to get a plane in position....

Do you have any clue as to what your talk’n ‘bout?
The HAWK’s radar systems are bigger than that and they’re air portable.
Why wouldn’t this be?

Brock
02-17-2005, 02:46 PM
I think you mean: "hungry children under the age of nine".

Don't you?
Just to be honest...

Save your we are the world speech. I'll take care of my kids, you take care of yours. Or theirs, if you like.

Brock
02-17-2005, 02:46 PM
Do you have any clue as to what your talk’n ‘bout?
The HAWK’s radar systems are bigger than that and they’re air portable.
Why wouldn’t this be?

Boeing is testing their airborne laser this year.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:47 PM
I think you mean: "hungry children under the age of nine".

Don't you?
Just to be honest...

Since it’s obvious your just here to bitch and whine without purpose or a shred of common sense, I guess I’m done for now.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 02:48 PM
Boeing is testing their airborne laser this year.

:thumb:

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:52 PM
When hungry kids are breaking into your house, you'll still be wondering why....

It's the Reagan/Bush 80's all over again.
It's amazing how fast people forget.

It's as if you don't understand the cause and effect relationship between poverty and crime.

Or you just think that it won't effect you personally, so you don't care.

Either way, it's a pretty pathetic way to live.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:53 PM
By the way, O'Reily:
Article Last Updated: 02/16/2005 01:11:29 AM

Energy secretary pushes to ramp up U.S. ability to test nuke bombs

By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune



WASHINGTON - Although scientists continue work on simulating nuclear bomb tests by computer, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday that the Nevada Test Site's ability to resume actual underground warhead detonations must be enhanced.
The Bush administration's commitment to step up preparations for a potential resumption of nuclear bomb testing in southern Nevada comes less than a week after the Utah Senate unanimously approved a House-passed resolution that urged the federal government not to "return to the mistakes and miscalculations of the past which have marred many Utahns" and that would create "a new generation of downwinders."

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2569845

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:08 PM
I'm saying that the cost isn't worth the supposed "protection" that it is supposed to deliver.

You really don't have a clue on this one...

For the record, I am against missile based systems for one simple reason... cost compared to a laser system.

The newest laser systems (one deployed by plane the other by mobile ground stations.. basically two tractor trailors) are ready to roll into the field over the next few years and have proven themselves to be extremely effective. They are also EXTREMELY cost effective and will continue to drop in price as we see major leaps in laser technology coming daily...
[ http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/16/intel.laser.reut/index.html ]

If this is the ONLY thing we see in the field as a result of ALL SDI spending over the past 20 years.. it is well worth it.

This device can cheaply intercept objects as small as artillary shells.

--Kyle

BIG_DADDY
02-17-2005, 03:09 PM
You really don't have a clue on this one...

For the record, I am against missile based systems for one simple reason... cost compared to a laser system.

The newest laser systems (one deployed by plane the other by mobile ground stations.. basically two tractor trailors) are ready to roll into the field over the next few years and have proven themselves to be extremely effective. They are also EXTREMELY cost effective and will continue to drop in price as we see major leaps in laser technology coming daily...
[ http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/16/intel.laser.reut/index.html ]

If this is the ONLY thing we see in the field as a result of ALL SDI spending over the past 20 years.. it is well worth it.

This device can cheaply intercept objects as small as artillary shells.

--Kyle

Just boot him Kyle, it's Thomas back after being banned like 20 times. He is like a bad case of Herpes he just never goes away.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:10 PM
Then why are they wasting so much money on missile interceptors?

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:11 PM
Boeing is testing their airborne laser this year.

That system is "ok".. but still too damn big(becuase they are a chemical laser)... in the next 10 years expect to see solid state 100kw lasers (more than enough power to destroy any missile) that are small enough to be deployed on fighters or possibly drones.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:13 PM
Um, "big" daddy, you are the one that has been insulting me and making physical threats since I got here, jackass...

Why don't you try debating me instead of threatening me?

Calling for me to be banned is weak, even for a guy that calls himself "big daddy" and makes physical threats on the internet.

Bwana
02-17-2005, 03:14 PM
Just boot him Kyle, it's Thomas back after being banned like 20 times. He is like a bad case of Herpes he just never goes away.

Well said.........

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:19 PM
Yes, obviously my stunning intellect is WAY too much for some people here to handle?

Geeze, I thought you guys were supposed to be smart!

Cochise
02-17-2005, 03:20 PM
Just boot him Kyle, it's Thomas back after being banned like 20 times. He is like a bad case of Herpes he just never goes away.

No kidding, he's a troll plain and simple.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:22 PM
Then why are they wasting so much money on missile interceptors?

Pentagon politics. If it wasn't for Rumsfeld we would still be developing a new freaking ARTILLERY SYSTEM designed for COLD WAR applications. Generals get attached to certain projects.

There is one advantage that a missile intercept system has... it can be deployed NOW (except the crapppy one that doesn't work...) We have all the production and technological systems in place. Lasers will take a few years (2007) before we can ramp up production.

Otherwise, I think it is juts Pentagon officials who are stuck on projects that were dreamed up in the 80s and have since become irrelevant due to advances in laser and other techs.

--Kyle

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:26 PM
Oh co-cheeze... Puhleeze...
Have a little whine to go your tiny violin....

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 03:28 PM
Yes, obviously my stunning intellect is WAY too much for some people here to handle?


If by “stunning intellect” you mean “mindlessly whining”, you’re correct it is too much for some to handle. But then why should they try?

Brock
02-17-2005, 03:29 PM
Yes, obviously my stunning intellect is WAY too much for some people here to handle?

I'm certainly not seeing it. So far, you're woefully uninformed on what is going on in the R and D world, preferring to wail about the children instead of staying on topic.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 03:29 PM
Pentagon politics. If it wasn't for Rumsfeld we would still be developing a new freaking ARTILLERY SYSTEM designed for COLD WAR applications. Generals get attached to certain projects.

There is one advantage that a missile intercept system has... it can be deployed NOW (except the crapppy one that doesn't work...) We have all the production and technological systems in place. Lasers will take a few years (2007) before we can ramp up production.

Otherwise, I think it is juts Pentagon officials who are stuck on projects that were dreamed up in the 80s and have since become irrelevant due to advances in laser and other techs.

--Kyle

Sounds ‘bout right.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:30 PM
Yes, obviously my stunning intellect is WAY too much for some people here to handle?

Geeze, I thought you guys were supposed to be smart!

no offense , you may have a stunning intellect.. but it is housed in a cranial cavity dominated by ignorance.

Laser Missile Defense is a reality and all your whining about SDI won't change that... so I guess it is time to be upset that America spent money on something that works and will save lives.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 03:31 PM
Oh co-cheeze... Puhleeze...
Have a little whine to go your tiny violin....

Denise, I knew that was you.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:35 PM
...and just an FYI.. barring major setbacks, we will have a similar system that is sattelite based by 2020... and even if we DON'T deploy it, I promise that the technology will be there. Missile/artillery/bombing threats will be a thing of the past in my lifetime. Although there will always be "other" threats to deal with.. the key is to stay as far ahead of the curve as possible.

(notice I don't say YOUR lifetime.. #1 I don't know how old you are and #2 from your observational skills I can only assume you are blind and may get hit by a bus.... so be careful crossing the street)

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:39 PM
Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags.
I will include them this time for those of you that are a bit slow...

Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
{sarcasm} Yes, obviously my stunning intellect is WAY too much for some people here to handle?

Geeze, I thought you guys were supposed to be smart! {/sarcasm}

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:40 PM
By the way, are you now agreeing with me that we are wasting money on interceptor missiles?

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 03:42 PM
By the way, are you now agreeing with me that we are wasting money on interceptor missiles?

Since it’s already been explained a couple times that we wouldn’t have one without the other, it’s readily apparent just who the slow one is.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:52 PM
We wouldn't have rockets without lasers?

I thought they were completely different technologies...

But as you say, I am a bit slow...

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:53 PM
By the way, are you now agreeing with me that we are wasting money on interceptor missiles?

I personally don't think we need this "phase" in the missile defense program.. but it does address immediate needs and the MISSILE technology isn't the issue it is the different tracking and radar systems that are being advanced by both programs that will benefit all future systems.

...to me it seams that some of that money is wasted.. but only if the system goes into production when there is something better out there (or on the horizon)... is the system in production yet? So we should stop all research that isn't "proven" to be useful? I wonder how the guys at Bell Labs would have felt if there funding was pulled for a seemingly useless project on coherent microwaves. That project didn't seem to ever have any practical applications...

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:55 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that missile technology will ever work, given the ability of the enemy to create cheap decoys.

Can any of you convince me that we can?

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:55 PM
We wouldn't have rockets without lasers?

I thought they were completely different technologies...

But as you say, I am a bit slow...

Actually as I just expleined.. they share a GREAT DEAL of technology... the problem usually isn't WHAT intercepts the incoming projectile... the problem is identifying and tracking it. Even if the missile system NEVER takes off (haha) the advances in tracking systems, computer models, radar arrays, etc... will help all future projects.

And in the end.. all research is good research... it only becomes "wasted" if you prove something to be ineffective and then go ahead and build it anyway.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 03:59 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that missile technology will ever work, given the ability of the enemy to create cheap decoys.

Can any of you convince we that we can?

nope... nor can you prove it will not work. That is why very intelligent men with advanced degrees in physics do the research... to find out IF things will work...

Now it also depends on what you mean.. because there already are VERY effective missile defense missiles out there.... but I assume you mean BPI (boost phase intercept) systems?

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 04:01 PM
Ok, I can accept some of that.

My point in the begining was that many conservatives are saying that they want a check box to opt out of paying for social security and other social programs that they disagree with.

I asked how they would feel about one for programs like SDI.

That degenerated into the pro's and con's of SDI and what the current name is.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 04:03 PM
I would expect the decoys to be seperate launches, as well as part of the main package.

That is probably what we are working on ourselves, right?

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 04:09 PM
Ok, I can accept some of that.

My point in the begining was that many conservatives are saying that they want a check box to opt out of paying for social security and other social programs that they disagree with.

I asked how they would feel about one for programs like SDI.

That degenerated into the pro's and con's of SDI and what the current name is.

hmmm a check box to opt out of any government program is obviosuly a dangerous concept... either a program is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (defense, infrastructure, education) or it is not. I don't believe the government should provideor even facilitate SS at all. It is not a primary function of government and therefore should be removed from governmental authority... SDI (defense) IS a prime funtion of govt.
(I also don't think the fed should be concerned with gay marriages or drug laws except when concerned with interstate commerce)

As for Social Security, I'm sorry but I don't think the ants should be forced to subsidize the grasshoppers. Simple as that.

Radar Chief
02-17-2005, 04:09 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that missile technology will ever work, given the ability of the enemy to create cheap decoys.

Can any of you convince me that we can?

You’ve been convinced by rhetoric that chafe or Mylar balloons present an undefeatable decoy.
Without getting into the boring technicalities of it, they aren’t.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 04:20 PM
I would expect the decoys to be seperate launches, as well as part of the main package.

That is probably what we are working on ourselves, right?

There are tons of "decoy" systems that have been proposed.. none are used.

The only effective decoy system is to actually build fake missiles that really launch... pretty damn expensive to do.

Our main defense systems are broken into two catagories .. BPI- the kind that hits the target just after it takes off... and the second kind is a MIDCOURSE intercept system... We have plenty of working examples of this (GEM+, AEGIS, etc..) and plenty under development (MTHEL,PAC3, the crappy one that keeps failing all its tests, etc..)

With the first type.. you can only "trick" it by actually launching "mock" missiles which is about 80% the cost of launching a REAL missile.. so that isn't feasible. The second type can "sometimes" be fooled by multiple warhead systems , chaff, etc... but I have yet to see any of these "tricks" effectively deployed... and most wouldn't work against a laser system anyway.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:55 PM
I'm pretty sure that I have stuck saying that ballistic missiles are a waste of money.

I haven't said that laser tech wouldn't work, only that it is still a bit infeasable.

The plane would still have to get relatively close to the incomming warhead to hit it.

Curavature of the earth, and all that...

bkkcoh
02-18-2005, 02:04 PM
...or anyone else oppose SS privatization? I'd like an explanation. I'd like to think the SS I've already paid into will be there when I need it, but its not. I'm willing to give up what I already paid in, just so I can stop paying into that and put it somewhere else...


How many of those people who are against privatizing any of the SS money have a 401k?

Wouldn't that be ironic....

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:38 PM
With so many American's running up massive credit card debt, what makes you think they would invest the money in their retirement?

historymann49
02-18-2005, 03:47 PM
Because liberals are fascist nanny-staters who believe that they have to take care of the rest of us (because we're idiots) and that only the idea they thought of will do.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:47 PM
Oh, and how many people lost money on their 401k's in the last few years?

Isn't that worth mentioning?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:51 PM
ignorant of historyman wrote: Because liberals are fascist nanny-staters who believe that they have to take care of the rest of us (because we're idiots) and that only the idea they thought of will do.

Why WAS SS created in the first place?
Weren't there PRIVATE pensions available before then?

Wasn't there some event that made FDR invest in the future retirement of all American's?

One that was NOT tied to the stock maket?

Surely someone that calls themselves "historyman" knows something about history?

historymann49
02-18-2005, 04:05 PM
SS was created in the first place to increase the government's control over our lives. No, private plans were not available then. Most people relied on their children and grandchildren to support them in their old age. Either that, or they worked until they dropped.
Certainly, the stock market fluctuates and you can lose money in the short term, but people who stay in the market for the long haul (saving for retirement) will always make money. There is no 20 year period in American history (including the Great Depression Era) in which the stock market has not gone up. Significantly up. Compare the Dow Jones today to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago.
(Yes, Lefty, I know my history.)

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:10 PM
Aparently you didn't know that people that worked the railroad had pensions.
Not to mention so many other private plans.

But they were wiped out in the Crash of 1929.

Are you sure you know your history?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:14 PM
People lost thousands on Enron just four years ago.

And that is recent history.

historymann49
02-18-2005, 04:25 PM
Sorry, I was not aware of pre-1929 railroad pensions. My uncle who worked for the LIRR had a pension later on, however. A crash such as that of 1929 can never happen again because the system has been reformed. SEC regulations, the prohibition of margin buying, etc.
Enron was unfortunate, but those who really got hurt were those who had no other investments. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:31 PM
Like the Florida Teachers Union?

That was managed by Jeb Bush, and he bought shares all the way down.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:34 PM
Anytime that the market makes an "adjustment" there is a chance that people could lose large portions of their savings.

The safest investment is Securities, which is what SS is based on.

If you have spare money to risk on the stock market, fine.

But it isn't a sound fiscal policy.

Like you said, smart people don't put all of their eggs in one basket, and no one is stopping people from investing in land, and IRA, or a 401k.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 04:38 PM
Anytime that the market makes an "adjustment" there is a chance that people could lose large portions of their savings.

The safest investment is Securities, which is what SS is based on.

If you have spare money to risk on the stock market, fine.

But it isn't a sound fiscal policy.

Like you said, smart people don't put all of their eggs in one basket, and no one is stopping people from investing in land, and IRA, or a 401k.

I can manage my own money I don't need some POS crooked ass politician touching it.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:41 PM
I feel the same way about defense contractors.

The difference is that SS helps people, and weapons kill them.

If I'm going to "waste money", I'd like it to be on the side of life.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 04:59 PM
I feel the same way about defense contractors.

The difference is that SS helps people, and weapons kill them.

If I'm going to "waste money", I'd like it to be on the side of life.

Why waste it at all. Privatizing SS helps my business too as I will bring in more assets to manage.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 05:01 PM
If I'm going to "waste money", I'd like it to be on the side of life.

Says the guy who probably wouldn't mind federally funded abortion on demand.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 05:02 PM
Says the guy who probably wouldn't mind federally funded abortion on demand.

ROFL NICE

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:09 PM
And the flip side of that is that you want to force the woman to have a child she doesn't want, and when it goes hungry, you won't feed it.

Republicans love the fetus, but they hate the child.

So strange.
I think babies are so much more fun and attractive.
But apprently once they are out of the womb, you guys expect them to get a job, right?

Until they can join the millitary anyway.

BigMeatballDave
02-19-2005, 01:08 PM
And the flip side of that is that you want to force the woman to have a child she doesn't want, and when it goes hungry, you won't feed it.

Republicans love the fetus, but they hate the child.

So strange.
I think babies are so much more fun and attractive.
But apprently once they are out of the womb, you guys expect them to get a job, right?

Until they can join the millitary anyway.You truely are an ignorant ****! HUGE CROCK OF SHIT! Do you have any clue how many people out there who would like to adopt an infant?

memyselfI
02-19-2005, 01:14 PM
You truely are an ignorant ****! HUGE CROCK OF SHIT! Do you have any clue how many people out there who would like to adopt an infant?


So, because there is a demand for 'an infant' there needs to be a government mandated supply?

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 02:00 PM
So, because there is a demand for 'an infant' there needs to be a government mandated supply?

This is how distorted your statements become when you defend the indefensible to maintain the party line. You can take somebody who needs to take responsibilty for creating a human life and turn that into a government mandated baby making program in order to justify the murder. This is a very hard subject for me. I do believe in a woman's right to decide but it should not be funded by the government. The woman's right to decide IMO should be limited to very early term pregnancy and cases of rape.

The fact that you will stop at nothing including completely distorting the situation to justify murdering babies doesn't speak well for you as a woman, citizen or human being in general for that matter. Then again I am sure that is not much of a surprise to anyone.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 02:03 PM
And the flip side of that is that you want to force the woman to have a child she doesn't want, and when it goes hungry, you won't feed it.

Republicans love the fetus, but they hate the child.

So strange.
I think babies are so much more fun and attractive.
But apprently once they are out of the womb, you guys expect them to get a job, right?

Until they can join the millitary anyway.
Until you socialists who believe it is wrong to club an animal and steal its body parts for someone else's gain - unless that animal is in a womb, right?

BigMeatballDave
02-19-2005, 03:28 PM
So, because there is a demand for 'an infant' there needs to be a government mandated supply?You too, are an ignorant ****...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:55 AM
Um, wolfman, that is an amazing leap of logic.

To equate a mass of cells with a living being that can exist outside of it's mother womb is simply dishonest.

Besides, God himself prescribed abortion for women that were cheating on their husbands.

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 04:17 PM
Um, wolfman, that is an amazing leap of logic.

To equate a mass of cells with a living being that can exist outside of it's mother womb is simply dishonest.

Besides, God himself prescribed abortion for women that were cheating on their husbands.
:shake: You're a ****ing retard...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:30 PM
Considering that you aren't KC, Chief, YOU are the ones showing signs that your mother drank while she was pregnant with you...

Unless of course you think that a human fetus can live on its own outside of the womb?

Or are you saying that God did NOT prescribe abortions?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 05:06 PM
Considering that you aren't KC, Chief, YOU are the ones showing signs that your mother drank while she was pregnant with you...

Unless of course you think that a human fetus can live on its own outside of the womb?

Or are you saying that God did NOT prescribe abortions?My mother never drank. So, **** off! I never MET GOD so I can't say what he prescribed. Now, let me tell you a little story... My sister did a few drugs while she was pregant and drank a little. She was young, 16 when she gave birth to her 1st child. He was born with Cerebral Palsy. He's 20, today, as a matter of fact. Mentally, he's fine. Phyically, he can't walk without the aid of a walker. She never concidered abortion. In 1987, she met her current husband. A few months of dating, she became pregant. She was 20, and just started college. She had an abortion. A few more years down the road. They were married. Then tried to conceive. 2 misscarrages ensued. She felt terrible regret for the abortion, now that she wanted a child. Finally, after 2-3 years of trying, they had a girl...

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:08 PM
Considering that you aren't KC, Chief, YOU are the ones showing signs that your mother drank while she was pregnant with you...

Unless of course you think that a human fetus can live on its own outside of the womb?

Or are you saying that God did NOT prescribe abortions?
Nice job. I am beginning to think we should take over/under on how many days until you implode.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:44 PM
So you are standing by your claim, KC?

That a fetus can live outside of the womb without medical assistance, and God never prescribed abortion?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:45 PM
So you are standing by your claim, KC?

That a fetus can live outside of the womb without medical assistance, and God never prescribed abortion?
Quote my "claim" please. I don't remember saying thus, or is this just another lie?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 06:16 PM
So you are standing by your claim, KC?

That a fetus can live outside of the womb without medical assistance, and God never prescribed abortion?**** off, already. I don't even think abortion should be banned. Its a necessary evil. If it were banned, I certainly would not lose any sleep over it.

Incest, yes. Life of mother, yes. Rape, it can still be adopted...

People need to understand what personal responsibility is all about. Getting knocked up, and aborting a fetus just because its an inconvenience, is not being responsible...