This is good
 

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik

This is good
 

On 23 Oct 2008 22:18:39 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

hilarious!

hint: click everything - multiple times...especially the door...

/daytripper (dinosaurs roaming the DC oilfields?!? ;-)

This is good
 

daytripper wrote in
:

On 23 Oct 2008 22:18:39 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

hilarious!

hint: click everything - multiple times...especially the door...

/daytripper (dinosaurs roaming the DC oilfields?!? ;-)



It says its going to change every day.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

OT: US Election, This is good
 

On Oct 23, 3:48*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Sorting
Benito

This is good
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
http://www.palinaspresident.us/

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik

The sad part is we are going to get another spender as President.
Neither Obama or Biden is worth a crap. What is sad is all the young people
going for the Obama charisma. When they should be voting for someone who is
going to cut government spending and that includes Social Security. They
are supporting a policy forecasting a huge increase in spending and Federal
Government. Our generation will go down as one of the worst at leaving a
world much worse for our passing. These 35 and less kids have not been told
how much they are going to owe for our sins. Those $80k salaries for a
union flunky as well as the other inflated white color salaries and the
inflation they have caused is going to hurt our kids big time and the excess
spending for no infrastructure! And it is not all to blame on wars. And no
school is even mentioning it from what I can see. Both the major parties
candidates are worthless. Actually less than worthless. The only candidate
with a genuine message for "change" Is Barr and the Libertarians. He has
not got a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but it is the message the
Republicans should be pushing if they want to win. So we get a choice of
two Senators, who are members of a body that has only a 12% approval rating.
Obama, has no resume that lends itself to declaring he should be CEO of a
small company, let alone the CEO of the USA. And McCain at least has a
little more experience, but is still short on good ideas just like Obama.
We are screwed as a people. We may be really bankrupt after 4 years of
Obama / Reid / Pelosi. And the mortgage meltdown has it's real genesis in
previous administrations and Mr. Greenspan. I hope you young flyfishers
that are so backing Obama, make lots of money to share with the poor and us
retirees.

This is good
 

On Oct 24, 2:07*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
We may be really bankrupt after 4 years of
Obama / Reid / Pelosi. *And the mortgage meltdown has it's real genesis in
previous administrations and Mr. Greenspan. *

LOL. In your effort to blame things on people have not yet come to
power, and who were in power 8 years ago, you seemed to have skipped
over some important current players.

And speaking of cutting government spending; after the record deficits
run up in the past 8 years, I can't imagine ANY sort of spend-fest
that could possibly be anything BUT a cut in spending. I laugh at the
folks who still believe that the Republicans really are opposed to
'big government'. We got the biggest in-your-pocket, in-your-telephone
and in-your-rights government ever, under Bush.

I hope you young flyfishers that are so backing Obama, make lots of money to share with the poor and us retirees.

I do too, but I thought you conservative types were against social
welfare programs and 'spreading the wealth around'? Funny how it
changes when you're the one in the bottom 95%, eh?

But seriously...you stand a much better chance of having federal
assistance if this current mess does not resolve from a Democratic
administration than a Republican one. And all those corporate buddies
who got rich by luring you into investing in their ponzi pyramid
investment schemes get to foot the bill.

--riverman

This is good
 

Calif Bill wrote:



The sad part is blah, blah, blah...




given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? how do you
propose, as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and
the impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and
his worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and
experienced republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

This is good
 

"Calif Bill" wrote


The sad part is



whisper Pss... Bill, your senility is showing /whisper


How did the trip to Burney go? Did you fish the Fall River? I have an
Outback 'Fall River Special' Pram I bought 20++ years ago especially to fish
there, but I haven't been up there in at least 10. Last time I was there
the .. um, unnamed ... fly shop was 'guiding' it's Johns by drifting boats
sideways through pods of rising fish (putting them down of course) with big
bobbers and nymphs while the guide shouted "set, set" to said Johns ... so
pathetic and sickening, so 'how many' 'how many' 'how many' that I've
never had the desire to go back and be forced to witness it again.





BTW, I've supported Obama precisely because I feel he's the best hope for
rebuilding this country and giving my son's ( he's 21) generation a chance
to somewhat reverse our errors. But, the biggest challenges they face will
only be indirectly financial and it will take investment to have any prayer
of solving them.


I'm retired, and watching my personal security go down daily as markets
crumble, it's scary **** I agree, but no where near as scary as a future of
'more of the same' for my kid.

MY response to my fears? I sent a few more of my scarce buck$ to Obama last
night, it's an investment for my kid. NO, I don't expect that
investment to make big improvements in MY remaining life, and NO I see no
guarantees except that failure to wisely invest will destroy this country.
The problems on the horizon are huge and far more important than just GDP
and Wall Street. Because I love my kid ( most kids, really ;-) I'm
willing to cut back for them and I'm willing to gamble on a new direction
.... not much of a gamble really, since the old one is certain failure.




When it comes to government, "small" is always relative, it's always big by
definition, "smart" and "honest" are the keys to success ... Obama is smart
and honest, smart enough to see years down the path, smart enough to
surround himself with the very best in each field and of all pursuasions and
actually listen to them, and honest enough to actually give a **** about
representing the people and working for their benefit ... long term as well
as short.



"Your old road is rapidly aging, please get out of the new one if you can't
lend a hand" G


ASIDE: For years it's seemed to me that the Republicans ( not Joe the
Whatever, or the Churchy Moms that just vote R ... the smoke filled room
guys at the top of the party ) do NOT see themselves as "representatives of
the people" rather they see themselves as "the ruling class" Those two
things are very different.

Given the inconvenience of our system they have to get people to vote for
them. Like ruling classes over history they see the peasants as stupid and
treat them that way ... thus Palin and Bush II and 'policy' that appeals
to one issue sound bite accepting wingnuts ( 'get yo hand off my gun,'
'protect all babies until they are born, then to hell with em,' 'NO taxes' )
As long as those wingnuts don't fight more money and power going to the
already rich and too powerful, those rich and powerful 'rulers' are willing
to 'support' such crap, whether they believe it or not ( look how far
"socially right" McCain claims to have moved in the last 4 years as he's
prepared to run, does anyone actually believe that change is real, I don't
..... but I DO believe it's totally dishonest ).

END ASIDE:

This is good
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 2:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
We may be really bankrupt after 4 years of
Obama / Reid / Pelosi. And the mortgage meltdown has it's real genesis in
previous administrations and Mr. Greenspan.

LOL. In your effort to blame things on people have not yet come to
power, and who were in power 8 years ago, you seemed to have skipped
over some important current players.

And speaking of cutting government spending; after the record deficits
run up in the past 8 years, I can't imagine ANY sort of spend-fest
that could possibly be anything BUT a cut in spending. I laugh at the
folks who still believe that the Republicans really are opposed to
'big government'. We got the biggest in-your-pocket, in-your-telephone
and in-your-rights government ever, under Bush.

I hope you young flyfishers that are so backing Obama, make lots of money
to share with the poor and us retirees.

I do too, but I thought you conservative types were against social
welfare programs and 'spreading the wealth around'? Funny how it
changes when you're the one in the bottom 95%, eh?

But seriously...you stand a much better chance of having federal
assistance if this current mess does not resolve from a Democratic
administration than a Republican one. And all those corporate buddies
who got rich by luring you into investing in their ponzi pyramid
investment schemes get to foot the bill.

--riverman
__________________________________________________ ___

The President is not the one who tells the government to spend money. It is
the Congress. They are the ones who pass spending bills, and the POTUS gets
to veto them. Unfortunately Bush failed in that miserably. Some years
ago, the Executive Branch helped to overcome excess spending by the Congress
by just not spending the money. That is a thing of the past as the Congress
got a judicial ruling that if they got a spending bill passed the money HAD
TO BE SPENT. And it has been a Democrat controlled Congress for more than a
year. So the Dem's get the blame also. I am a social liberal and a fiscal
conservative. Used to be a Dem, still registered that way, but this Dem
party is way to far to the left for us older Dem's. Hell, JFK would be a
moderate Republican now. And this financial meltdown is not really because
of Bush's policies. These policies were laid down before he came to office.
I lay a lot of the blame on Greenspan. One of the worst Fed Chairs ever.
He gave us the dot.bomb boom. And the easy money after that disaster led to
the cheap loans of the next mortgage.bomb. Clinton was not fiscal
conservative. He was a very lucky guy. Gets a Newt Contract with America
Congress, that slowed down spending, and then got a huge growth in income
from the dot.bomb that they could not spend fast enough. Clinton's first 2
years were fiscal disasters also until Newt came in. The spreading of the
wealth is only raising the money owed by the future generations. The
Federal revenue has come in at 20-22% of GDP for at least 50 years. No
matter if boom times or tight times. Used to be the Fed's spent about
20-22% of GDP. They are going towards the 30-38% level. You have a
Department of Education that controls education in America. Since their
creation in about 1980, we have had education take a nose dive. Take money
from the states, and send 75% back with lots of strings attached. Lowest
graduation rates in history. Lowest graduation rate of any industrialized
nation. In 1950 the total tax burden on an American family was about 22%.
Now it is about 48%. Are we better off? I do not think so. The Fed's in
the 1950's created a huge boom in the Infrastructure with the Interstate
highway system. Our infrastructure is in perilous decline, and the Fed and
states are spending gross amounts of money, but not on the infrastructure.
With Obama's background and declared socialist leanings and the Reid /
Pelosi veto proof Congress, our children and grandchildren are screwed.
Screwed worse than they are now. When did Social Security morf from the
Widows and Childrens Act to be the national Retirement plan? For a country
with 300 million citizens, we sure have a knack for picking the bottom of
the heap as to leadership. I am on Social Security, but Boxer wants my
401K's and IRA's also. Of the 2 candidates, McCain scares me less. In
Obama, you have a person who has already stated he is going to increase the
cost and size of governenment. And I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.
Just could not vote for either of them. Maybe I learned my lesson when
voting for LBJ. That got me a draft notice and the US a greatly increased
SEA war.

This is good
 

"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:



The sad part is blah, blah, blah...




given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? how do you propose,
as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and the
impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and his
worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and experienced
republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way out
of debt?

This is good
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote


The sad part is



whisper Pss... Bill, your senility is showing /whisper


How did the trip to Burney go? Did you fish the Fall River? I have an
Outback 'Fall River Special' Pram I bought 20++ years ago especially to
fish there, but I haven't been up there in at least 10. Last time I was
there the .. um, unnamed ... fly shop was 'guiding' it's Johns by drifting
boats sideways through pods of rising fish (putting them down of course)
with big bobbers and nymphs while the guide shouted "set, set" to said
Johns ... so pathetic and sickening, so 'how many' 'how many' 'how many'
that I've never had the desire to go back and be forced to witness it
again.





BTW, I've supported Obama precisely because I feel he's the best hope for
rebuilding this country and giving my son's ( he's 21) generation a chance
to somewhat reverse our errors. But, the biggest challenges they face
will only be indirectly financial and it will take investment to have any
prayer of solving them.


I'm retired, and watching my personal security go down daily as markets
crumble, it's scary **** I agree, but no where near as scary as a future
of 'more of the same' for my kid.

MY response to my fears? I sent a few more of my scarce buck$ to Obama
last night, it's an investment for my kid. NO, I don't expect that
investment to make big improvements in MY remaining life, and NO I see no
guarantees except that failure to wisely invest will destroy this country.
The problems on the horizon are huge and far more important than just GDP
and Wall Street. Because I love my kid ( most kids, really ;-) I'm
willing to cut back for them and I'm willing to gamble on a new direction
... not much of a gamble really, since the old one is certain failure.




When it comes to government, "small" is always relative, it's always big
by definition, "smart" and "honest" are the keys to success ... Obama is
smart and honest, smart enough to see years down the path, smart enough to
surround himself with the very best in each field and of all pursuasions
and actually listen to them, and honest enough to actually give a ****
about representing the people and working for their benefit ... long term
as well as short.



"Your old road is rapidly aging, please get out of the new one if you
can't lend a hand" G


ASIDE: For years it's seemed to me that the Republicans ( not Joe the
Whatever, or the Churchy Moms that just vote R ... the smoke filled room
guys at the top of the party ) do NOT see themselves as "representatives
of the people" rather they see themselves as "the ruling class"
Those two things are very different.

Given the inconvenience of our system they have to get people to vote for
them. Like ruling classes over history they see the peasants as stupid
and treat them that way ... thus Palin and Bush II and 'policy' that
appeals to one issue sound bite accepting wingnuts ( 'get yo hand off my
gun,' 'protect all babies until they are born, then to hell with em,' 'NO
taxes' ) As long as those wingnuts don't fight more money and power going
to the already rich and too powerful, those rich and powerful 'rulers' are
willing to 'support' such crap, whether they believe it or not ( look how
far "socially right" McCain claims to have moved in the last 4 years as
he's prepared to run, does anyone actually believe that change is real, I
don't .... but I DO believe it's totally dishonest ).

END ASIDE:



As I asked Mr. Miller, "do you spend your way out of debt?". And I do not
feel Obama is honest. As Chicago friends say, Obama as accomplished nothing
for them.

As to Burney, Fishing was OK, catching was bad. Was more of an exploration
trip. Did not fish the Hat Creek or Fall River. Went up to Big Lake, and
was very much an Algae hole. We were looking at taking the Canoe or Kayak
up there from the State Parks pictures of the springs are. Could not find
the springs until a nice gentleman told us to follow him at the end of the
day. Water went from 6" vis to 20' and see the bottom in about a 20'
distance. Saw lots of small trout and wife saw one about 24". But to late
in the day to stay and fish, as wanted to get to the launch ramp while it
was still light and I could find it. Next day went to Lake Britton and
fished Burney Creek. Lots of really big Stoneflies. Maybe the trout were
sated, but only one person caught a trout. Went exploring Lake Britton and
did try for some smallmouth. Failed on that endeavor also. But mid 30's at
night and 70's during the day made for a nice trip. So much Algae in the
lake, that I thought I was going to run aground at the ramp. Looked like
you were seeing the greenish bottom about 12" deep. Was 24' deep according
to the depth finder. Think I may go up there next year, but more likely
take the Canoe / kayaks to June Lake area. Going out to fish Stripers in
the Sac Delta tomorrow.

This is good
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:


The sad part is blah, blah, blah...



given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? how do you propose,
as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and the
impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and his
worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and experienced
republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way out
of debt?



no, i work harder, collect accounts due, etc. but it's not really the
same thing or even a good analogy in my opinion. again...how do you
propose we cut taxes and spending under the existing circumstances, and
what do we do about our seniors and poor?

jeff

This is good
 

"Calif Bill" wrote










take the Canoe / kayaks to June Lake area. Going out to fish Stripers in
the Sac Delta tomorrow.



Let us know how it goes

I haven't been out there in several years. I "need" to get a new heavy
rod, my old Loomis 8wt is too heavy and slow for an old man. Where do you
go out there? I go to Franks Track and I also like San Luis forebay for
Stripers.

I spent an hour this morning on the Stanislaus at Honolulu Bar , got a
couple hits but fighting the tough wading to watch a bobber got old quick.



As for the OT thread ... I doubt if many here are more fiscally
conservative than myself ... I haven't had any debt of any kind except for a
mortgage on a small 2 bedroom home and a few acres of dirt around it in many
years ... I drive a '92 Dodge with 274,568 miles on it and I'm aiming to
keep it another year or two, if possible ... I don't buy anything unless I
really feel it's needed, not just for budget reasons but for ecological
ones. I talk the talk .... and try hard to walk the walk, too.

BUT, I am in my fourth year of big spending on my son's college education
....because we have to invest .... not just scrimp, ... to insure the future

Without investment in alternate energy, infrastucture, and education to help
our kids compete, they are doomed. With the investment it will still be
damn tough for them. "Investment" is NOT giving more money to the rich
people, btw.

What, imho, we REALLY need is to teach our kids that "I am what I own" is a
pathetic, empty, thing to feel and think about oneself. But, kid's, damn
'em, learn from watching, not from what they are told .... drive that old
clunker another couple years and smile as you do it and maybe our kids will
get the message.

This is good
 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:54:46 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:


The sad part is blah, blah, blah...



given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? how do you propose,
as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and the
impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and his
worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and experienced
republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way out
of debt?



no, i work harder, collect accounts due, etc. but it's not really the
same thing or even a good analogy in my opinion. again...how do you
propose we cut taxes and spending under the existing circumstances, and
what do we do about our seniors and poor?

Which "seniors" and which "poor?" Some of them should be left to fend
for themselves, while others should have their capital input returned
with a reasonable rate of interest and still others should receive
_minimal_ assistance without having contributed. For example, as one
who is "affluent" in the overall scheme of things, are you prepared to
volunteer to accept your contributions to SSI back with a small rate of
return?

TC,
R

jeff

OT: US Election, This is good
 

On Oct 24, 1:54*pm, Jeff wrote:
sorting
Dave

OT: US Election, This is good
 

DaveS wrote:
sorting

You know, the last time an elderly crank got so out of sorts
(pun intended ;-) about "on" versus "off" topic posts he
worked himself into such a tizzy he had to resort to posting
on alt.flyfishing.

Please, don't be going all Fred on us. This is roff, embrace
the chaos.

--
Ken Fortenberry

This is good
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote










take the Canoe / kayaks to June Lake area. Going out to fish Stripers in
the Sac Delta tomorrow.



Let us know how it goes

I haven't been out there in several years. I "need" to get a new heavy
rod, my old Loomis 8wt is too heavy and slow for an old man. Where do you
go out there? I go to Franks Track and I also like San Luis forebay for
Stripers.

I spent an hour this morning on the Stanislaus at Honolulu Bar , got a
couple hits but fighting the tough wading to watch a bobber got old quick.



As for the OT thread ... I doubt if many here are more fiscally
conservative than myself ... I haven't had any debt of any kind except for
a mortgage on a small 2 bedroom home and a few acres of dirt around it in
many years ... I drive a '92 Dodge with 274,568 miles on it and I'm aiming
to keep it another year or two, if possible ... I don't buy anything
unless I really feel it's needed, not just for budget reasons but for
ecological ones. I talk the talk .... and try hard to walk the walk,
too.

BUT, I am in my fourth year of big spending on my son's college education
...because we have to invest .... not just scrimp, ... to insure the
future

Without investment in alternate energy, infrastucture, and education to
help our kids compete, they are doomed. With the investment it will
still be damn tough for them. "Investment" is NOT giving more money to
the rich people, btw.

What, imho, we REALLY need is to teach our kids that "I am what I own" is
a pathetic, empty, thing to feel and think about oneself. But, kid's,
damn 'em, learn from watching, not from what they are told .... drive that
old clunker another couple years and smile as you do it and maybe our kids
will get the message.



I am thinking Franks tract or Mildred Island. If the wind stays away, maybe
San Pablo bay. The World series bite has been very good some years.

This is good
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:
"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:


The sad part is blah, blah, blah...



given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? how do you
propose, as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and
the impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and
his worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and
experienced republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way
out of debt?

no, i work harder, collect accounts due, etc. but it's not really the
same thing or even a good analogy in my opinion. again...how do you
propose we cut taxes and spending under the existing circumstances, and
what do we do about our seniors and poor?

jeff

But the Pol's want to spend us outta debt. Most seniors are not destitute.
Seniorhood comes with a 10% discount a lot of places, but as a group they
are the wealthy demographic in the country. And poor is realitive. Look at
our poor, lots have cars, Color TV, and are fat. I owned a business a lot
of years ago, and we hired casual labor to clean the storage yard at times.
Most were poor, but they knew every angle to milk the system. They did not
want to work. Those can die for all my sympathy. I want society to help
those who can not help themselves. Those with a true handicap. Mental
problems, health problems, not those who park in the handicapped slot,
because they have a sticker because they weigh 400 pounds and can not walk.
Not those who dropped out of school because they were bored. Was in Costa
Rica early this year. 99% literacy rate. School is mandatory. You should
be in school and are not and the cop sees you on the street. You are picked
up. Here the parents do not even know where the kid is a lot of time.
Example: Oakland police picked up a kid out in the streets at midnight. 12
years old. Parents were upset that the police were picking on the kid. Sad
is it not?

The government can collect owed money, but they can not work hard / longer
for more income. Or they can raise prices. If you try to raise your price
excessively your business fails. Same with the government, they raise taxes
excessively and lots of business's fail

This is good
 

On Oct 24, 1:22*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:


Thats a line straight from the play book. What exactly do the Chicago
Friends say? They probably don't count Obama's work on Nuclear
Nonproliferation. And I presume organizing a nationwide winning
campaign to throw the corrupt, incompetent Repubs out on their ass,
restore constitutional government, start paying our bills again, and
reclaiming the honor of the country from the thieves, traitors and
scumbags probably doesn't count either. At the rate the Repubs are
Nationalizing things, this country could be Socialist before Obama
takes the oath. Then I guess we will have to listen to the same old
crap about how "Clinton made em do it" and fairy tales about how the
Democrats actually snuck in there and stole the money.

Face it. The ideology of greed first, USA second failed. The party is
over. Time to pay the piper, get down to work and stop making excuses
for the disastrous results of a poisonous ideology.

Dave
Ron Paul is just another Texas crook. He and Nader should date.

This is good
 

On Oct 24, 3:07*pm, wrote:

Do you think our country should pay its bills? How?

Dave

OT: US Election, "This is good"
 

On Oct 24, 3:07*pm, wrote:

Do you think our Country should take care of its elderly? How?

Dave

OT: US Election, "This is good"
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:02:53 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

Do you think our Country should take care of its elderly? How?

Feed them soylent green. We elderly want a piece of the pie too, and
Barry is gonna do it for us.

Sort this.

d;o)

OT: US Election, This is good
 

On Oct 24, 4:39*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
DaveS wrote:
sorting

You know, the last time an elderly crank got so out of sorts
(pun intended ;-) about "on" versus "off" topic posts he
worked himself into such a tizzy he had to resort to posting
on alt.flyfishing.

Please, don't be going all Fred on us. This is roff, embrace
the chaos.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Oh I like chaos almost as much as you. But we are not the world.
I also like a healthy, robust membership because it produces more
interesting fly fishing content. And it's a fact that some of the
better content had traditionally come from people with less of an
appetite for chaos and political content than you, I, Dean, Dave etc..
Vive la différence. So . . .

Whats wrong with marking the ON TOPIC threads so folks can choose and
navigate? Its a no-cost potential improvement. Marking off topic
posts "OT" is something of a protocol, right? Kinda like posting
below . . . . I know how politely you react to top posting.

Its not like someone has changed the sand in the box to gravel, Why
not give it a few weeks?

Dave

This is good
 

On Oct 24, 5:55*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

And businesses that don't pay their bills go out of business (except
in a few States where the cleptocracy is so intrenched that scammers
are protected. Texas and Florida for example.) Governments pay their
bills with the taxes they collect. The Bush tax "cuts" were a sham.
Instead of paying the bills, the rich were let off the hook, the
Bushies just said "charge it," and now my kids and grandchildren will
be paying triple for the foolishness of this failed ideology of greed.
On principle I have not yet taken my "tax rebate." Have you spent
yours?

One of the things I did as a consultant was to uncover fraud and waste
in job training programs. The majority of the cheats and scammers were
middle class and well off people. I never found a church run program
that WAS NOT at least a partial scam. (Catholic, Protestant or,
Jewish,) The majority of SSI and medicare cheats have not been poor or
Black. The biggest medicare cheats are immigrant doctors. I bet you
would be surprised to learn how many people in your neighborhood,
church group, extended family, business associates etc cheat, or try
to cheat various programs. As Pogo said, I have seen the enemy and he
is us.

Dave
It might also surprise you that the majority of White and Black
correctional inmates I came into contact with in a 35 year career
shared your beliefs, IE criminals in general do not appear to be a
politically "liberal" group.

OT: US Election, This is good
 

DaveS wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You know, the last time an elderly crank got so out of sorts
(pun intended ;-) about "on" versus "off" topic posts he
worked himself into such a tizzy he had to resort to posting
on alt.flyfishing.

Please, don't be going all Fred on us. This is roff, embrace
the chaos.

Oh I like chaos almost as much as you. But we are not the world.
I also like a healthy, robust membership because it produces more
interesting fly fishing content. And it's a fact that some of the
better content had traditionally come from people with less of an
appetite for chaos and political content than you, I, Dean, Dave etc..
Vive la différence. So . . .

Whats wrong with marking the ON TOPIC threads so folks can choose and
navigate? Its a no-cost potential improvement. Marking off topic
posts "OT" is something of a protocol, right? ...

On some newsgroups, sure, that's the convention. But on roff
nothing is considered OT. And if folks can't choose and navigate
among what they want to read as opposed to what they don't want
to read then they're probably not bright enough to survive here
anyway. cf Fred.

Kinda like posting
below . . . . I know how politely you react to top posting.

First The Loony, now you. I'm getting a little weary of the
hero worship I have to endure around here.

Its not like someone has changed the sand in the box to gravel, Why
not give it a few weeks?

Knock yourself out, I think it's silly but I know better than
to argue with someone who's as stubborn as a Dutch uncle.

--
Ken Fortenberry

This is good
 

On Oct 24, 6:07*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:54:46 -0400, Jeff wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"jeff miller" wrote in message
t...
Calif Bill wrote:

The sad part is blah, blah, blah...

given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? *how do you propose,
as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and the
impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and his
worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and experienced
republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way out
of debt?

no, i work harder, collect accounts due, etc. *but it's not really the
same thing or even a good analogy in my opinion. *again...how do you
propose we cut taxes and spending under the existing circumstances, and
what do we do about our seniors and poor?

Which "seniors" and which "poor?" *Some of them should be left to fend
for themselves, while others should have their capital input returned
with a reasonable rate of interest and still others should receive
_minimal_ assistance without having contributed. *For example, as one
who is "affluent" in the overall scheme of things, are you prepared to
volunteer to accept your contributions to SSI back with a small rate of
return?

TC,
R



jeff

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

This is good
 

OT: US Election, "This is good"
 

Why don't all of you take a weekend off and do some fly fishing? :-)

This is good
 

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.
Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

.. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

This is good
 

On Oct 25, 3:39*pm, rw wrote:
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

I'm sure if you gave them the option to opt out of the program
most would. I know I'd agree not to take any SS if they agreed
to stop taking the money from my paychecks.....
.....or was that not what you meant? :-)
- Ken

This is good
 

This is good
 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.

Er, how do you figure that? I have no idea of the exact numbers, but
I'd offer that most folks taking benefits from SSI have not contributed
much to "the fund" as they have paid very little tax or otherwise
contributed to the general funding of the Fed.

Now, if you're talking about old age benefits, those folks have
contributed, in general, but there is no way that take-out will continue
to exceed input and when the whole "Trust Fund" **** hits the fan
(granted, not for a coupla-three decades, if projections are halfway
close), your age group's kids and my age group are gonna be lucky to get
anything and certainly my "take-out" is not going to be anywhere near my
_overall_ input.

Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

No, but a proper investment strategy will, over the years, yield more
than the various Fed programs ("old age" - "Social Security") and
welfare (SSI) schemes

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

Well, sure...suppose someone fell asleep with the cookies in the oven...

HTH,
R

This is good
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

What the **** does retirement have to do with SSI? Children can collect
it, and it's strictly (or almost so) an entitlement program - you're
confusing SSI with "old age"/retirement benefits. But don't get me
wrong, the whole old age benefits system is a cluster****, too...

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it. In fact, it is specifically for "the poor" -
IOW, it's welfare with a Federal bureaucracy to really, um, redistribute
wealth...

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

SNICKER

HTH,
R

This is good
 

This is good
 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:57:26 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.


And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it.

You truly are a ****ing ignorant, dishonest piece of ****. And desperate.

There is NO means testing in SSI.

THOSE LYING *******S!! They _claim_...well, let's let the SSA explain
it:

"Rules for getting SSI:

Your income and resources:

Whether you can get SSI depends on your income and resources (the things
you own)."

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11000.html#part3

....but, to be fair, they don't count the first $20 a month of income or
the first $65 a month someone actually earns...

Hee-hee-hee,
R
....for a self-proclaimed stock-market investor, I'd say you make one
hell of an innertube model...

This is good
 

" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 3:39 pm, rw wrote:
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

I'm sure if you gave them the option to opt out of the program
most would. I know I'd agree not to take any SS if they agreed
to stop taking the money from my paychecks.....
.....or was that not what you meant? :-)
- Ken


It was not always the national retirement system. It was originally the
Widows and childrens act to keep the poor widow and children from starving
when the wage earner died. Which was usually the mail. The original rate
was 1% of (I think) the first $1500 if earnbed income. As late as 1963 I
still managed to get a raise in my paycheck about 2/3 the way through the
year as an apprentice making $62.50 a week. The amount paid into the system
was 1% of the first $3300 income. So between the employer and employee the
total investment was $660. And this gave you and your family a livetime
disability plan. Not until LBJ needed more money for himself and the wife
via war and he raised the rate of payment and the limit and promised more
money to the masses. Gave a huge increase in Federal revenue and little
extra expense in those days. But the expense has risen exponentially while
revenues have not. Most of those collecting SS now did not pay in enough to
really justify the high checks. Buy an insurance policy that covers you for
death and disability and figure out what that would have cost you a year,
and then on top of that the amount of money that you would have to put into
an annuity to get the present returns. Probably a lot more than most of us
paid in. The rate for the youg people like my kids is probably enough to
cover the payments, except this Ponzi scheme will have paid out the money to
us early collectors. What happens in 15 years when there is only 3-4
workers for every retiree?

This is good
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.


And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it.

You truly are a ****ing ignorant, dishonest piece of ****. And desperate.

There is NO means testing in SSI.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

SSI is separate from Social Security. Was originally for those like my
Grandmother who was never required to pay the SS tax. They were farmers and
exempt for the tax. Then it was expanded to cover poor. My brother's wife
brought her elderly parents here from England and they promptly got signed
up for SSI. I always thought it sucked, but they were instantly eligible.
SSI for your enlightenment is not Social Security, but is administered by
the SS Administration. And the money comes out of the SS taxes paid by the
working.

OT: US Election, "This is good"
 

On Oct 26, 6:35*pm, Don46 wrote:
Why don't all of you take a weekend off and do some fly fishing? *:-)

Don, I bet lots of people will be fishing this weekend. I am headed
out wednesday for a week or so fishing in Eastern Washington. What
did you think of all the posts on the Salmon River trips? Did you read
the TR on fly fishing on the Neva in Italy? There are also some very
current posts on plans for trips up into Canada. Any experiences to
share with these venues or others you've fished recently?

Dave

This is good
 

On Oct 27, 10:20*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:


SSI is separate from Social Security. *Was originally for those like my
Grandmother who was never required to pay the SS tax. *They were farmers and
exempt for the tax. *Then it was expanded to cover poor. *My brother's wife
brought her elderly parents here from England and they promptly got signed
up for SSI. *I always thought it sucked, but they were instantly eligible.
SSI for your enlightenment is not Social Security, but is administered by
the SS Administration. *And the money comes out of the SS taxes paid by the
working.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you are right about people getting onto the SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY
INCOME program. And in the 1980s and 1990s financial advisers figured
out the loopholes and wholesale, MIDDLECLASS and well off people piled
onto the program. It took the Feds several years to plug the abuser's
gap. For a while some people figured out how to get children declared
disabled for very questionable things (like talking back to their
parents) and we saw it used to subsidize private school tuition etc.
These were not poor Black people doing the cheating. It was primarily
WHITE well off people. US.

And it was also well connected immigrants primarily associated with H!
B visa using technology firms that slipped in, but other game players
included both Christian and Jewish immigrant serving programs.. Part
of the recruitment strategy was to set the new hires parents and
siblings up on SSI, as per the guidance of tech company HRD staff.
That way they could pay less of the company's money, but backfill with
Uncle Sap's money. Name the big tech company, and they played the
game. Thank god the Feds plugged this part of the H1B abuses. But very
few Americans know about this fiasco, much less the difference between
SSI and Social Security retirement.

One of the reasons I get ****ed when I hear some of the "private
sector this", and "private sector that" bull**** from business execs
who try for State and Federal elective office, is that I do know
something about who cheated and abused these programs and frankly I
sometimes want to kick their hypocritical asses. They are mostly Rs
but the Ds have had a few too.

You are wrong as to where the money comes from. The money for SSI
technically comes out of general revenue, not the Trust Fund. However
that is almost immaterial in the whole scheme of things.

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

My numbers may be off and need updating but that is the general shape
of it. Bottomline is that Wall Street and their Congressional lackeys
made a good fight to rip off America's largest single source of
retirement income, and almost convinced a giddy populace that they
could get rich in the magical stock market. They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Its another example of conflating the ideology of greed, with
political expression. The reforms of the Roosevelt years saved this
country from a radical turn to the left. The social security system,
the unemployment insurance trust fund, the workmen's compensation
system, the banking (FDIC) and financial system reforms, and the fair
labor laws of our fathers, established a safety net and a firm set of
ground rules within which capitalism and free market enterprise could
flourish.

Sadly, greed and one political party's obsession with tearing down the
stabilizing structure of our father's hard earned Roosevelt reforms,
that has resulted in the mess we are currently in. Now, panicked we
see the unseemly near nationalization of the tattered system by the
administration. We see over reactions that threaten the basic
competitive and entrepreunurial character of our economy. I find it
ironic that it will fall to the Democrats to rebuild the competitive
and entrepreunurial character of our economy.



Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? *I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Of course you would. And I would like my tax money used to subsidize
those 400 or so substantial US and offshore companies who pay no
taxes. I would like to be able to tell them pay their share of police,
fire, school etc costs. Boeing flies its planes out over international
waters to avoid taxes. Microsoft runs its money thru a closet in
Nevada so Bill Gates can posture about how my school taxes should be
spent, I subsidize Intel's factory roads, the Hartford forest lands
and Weyerhaeuser pay diddle squat. And I have a better insight these
days on just how the Ag bill works since I bought some farm land.


Bottom-line is that a lot of this ideology stuff has clouded what we
really need to do in this country to both take proper care of our
people and build up a productive, competitive and entrepreneurial
private sector that can pay for our way of life in a sustainable
basis.

Dave