fuel economy in car commercials

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>But not the debt held by the Government.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?
>>
>>SS starts sending out more money than it takes in. It calls in the
>>'loan'. Trouble is, the rest of government is spending more money than it
>>takes in too. Where does the money come from Dr. Parker?
>>
>>a) Borrow from someone else.
>>b) Raise taxes.
>
> So? You right-wingers elected the current big borrowers.

Still haven't learned that disagreeing with you != "right-winger"

>>I want out of SS.

> I want out of my paying taxes for Iraq.

Me too. Throw in the money squandered on welfare (both kinds, to the poor
and to corporations), black projects (although if they weren't black, I
could probably see supporting some of them), job programs which only
provide jobs for people to run them, ghost payrollers, connected
contractors, Daley's reconfiguration of Ohare and paving over of
bensenville, and countless other things.

>>I am disciplined enough to save my money without the
>>government taking it from me with only the promise to pay something
>>back. Remember, SS is a tax, we have NO PROPERTY RIGHT to the money.

> Yeah, I'm sure all the Enron stock holders feel so sorry for you.

I am sure the greys in the space craft hovering above your workplace feel
sorry for you.

>>Congress could decide to kill SS at any time and give us nothing.

> Like Enron.

Much like the greys.

What's your point Parker? I haven't mentioned stock at all. I simply want
a property interest in the money taken from me by the government because
elites like yourself have declared the populace too stupid to save on
their own.

>>(although, that I believe is part of the point, to create a
>>dependence and thusly votes to be in power. If we had property rights to
>>the money, the democrats couldn't play the 'republicans-are-going-to-take-
>>away-your-social-security' fear game. It's on par with drugs-are-going-
>>to-kill-your-children and the-terrorists-are-going-get-you.)

>>There is no SS for me. The SSA says as much on their website.

> Then you need someone to read it to you.

What about surplus gone and not enough income to cover outgo do
you not understand? You haven't even read it have you Dr. Parker?

>>I pay SS
>>taxes my entire life, and when I turn 65 I'll get the finger, or shortly
>>there after. The pyramid will be rubble. Even if the rest of the
>>government pays back SS. You'll get yours Dr. Parker, but there is no SS
>>for me. SSA reports going back at least 6 years show this. It's all on
>>the offical website for you to read.

> So English must not be your native language.

Parker, not having visited the SSA website, but knowing it is there
resorts to insult because he doesn't have any backup. If I am wrong Dr.
Parker, why don't you just quote the relevant sections? Much more
effective than just throwing around insults.

>>There are two plans in circulation right now:
>>1) Do nothing.
>>2) Have some bit in private accounts.

> Which doesn't do anything for SS solvency (Bush admits this) and will cost
> trillions of dollars.

Of course not. But there is no plan for solvency on the table. The two
plans on the table are do nothing and have a little property interest in
the money taken from us. Those are the choices presented. And why do you
even care Dr. Parker? You'll be dead before it goes tits up either way.
I'm the one that needs to care. Why isn't there a plan for solvency on
the table? Why hasn't your wing of the effective one party proposed one?

>>Plan #1 I get nothing or close to it. Plan #2 I may have something to
>>walk away with.

> Ever hear of an IRA? You can have a private account now.

Not with the money that the government takes from me. That's the point.
I am losing around 12% of my earnings (there is no such thing as a
employer portion, that's money I have to produce value for to be
employed) to SS every year. An IRA doesn't change that. If I had the 12%
SS is taking from me, then the funds I am saving could be freed up for
other purposes.

>>I liked the idea of having a property interest to retain at least some of
>>the funds the government takes from me as SS tax back when President
>>Clinton proposed it back in 1999. Bush's proposal offers the same basic
>>thing, a property right to some of the money now taken from me. Even if
>>it remains in government bonds and there is no other choice, just having
>>a property interest is of great benefit.

Figured you go silent when I mentioned liking Clinton's proposal for
private accounts above the status quo too... You're all politics Parker.
You'd be all for invading Iraq too if the democrats had done it in 1998.

> On Tue, 29 Mar 05 09:03:04 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >>But not the debt held by the Government.
> >
> >Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?

"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> It is if you spend both the loaned money and the note.

The Social Security Trust fund still holds the notes BillieBoy.

Stupid... Stupid... BillieBoy...



"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> We are talking about SS, not other debts. The bonds that make up the
> SS surplus are not capable of being redeemed; the gov't simply doesn't
> have that money.

So you are saying that the Republican administration plans to default on
it's loans to the american people, but not it's loans to China?



"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> The US Government isn't IBM.

If it was, 90% of it's workforce would be outsourced to Socialist nations
in Europe and the Pacific Rim.


"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> As a taxpayer,
> *we* have to come up with that money. Twice. Once when we paid our SS
> taxes, and now, since that surplus is in the form of Treasury Bonds,
> we'll have to pay again, when those bonds are redeemed.

Snicker.... Since the AmeriKKKan people receive the money twice, that
seems only fair. Once when it is spent after being borrowed, and then again
when they collect it as part of their SS payments.

Do you not understand this?

Stupid... Stupid... Billyboy....

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Government is mismanaged regardless of which wing of the effective single
> party is in control. The problem is some people consider wasting money on
X
> acceptable but not wasting it on Y. One group supports democrats the
> other republicans. I support neither because I feel both X and Y are a
> unacceptable waste of money.

Can Brent name a single Republican president or Congress that has
submitted a balanced budget?

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.' - Dick Cheney...




> > Don't worry Brent. The wealth will trickle down to you.


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> It will redistributed to Dr. Parker and those like him. There is no
> social security (drastically reduced benefits at a much older age at
> best) for people my age the way things are going, see the ssa website.

Well, according the the SS trustees, even if nothing is done with the
Social Security program it will be able to pay out full benefits until 2041,
and then 78% of benefits from that point forward, in perpetuity.

Course, you aren't going to hear that truth from the Bush Administration.



> > By the way Brent... What is your plan for funding the $160 trillion in
> > unfunded liabilities.


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> What is yours? You seem to offer nothing but insults.

I plan to continue to laugh as the American people continue to be Raped
by the Conservative Right.

Rape me next - the eternal Republican motto.

In article >, Vendicar Decarian wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And we know which two of those you are opposed to.
>
> And we know which of the three Repubilcans thrive on. Borrowed money.

Both wings of the effective one party love that, what's your point?
It's not like either wing is going to _cut_ anything, just slow the rate
of growth.

In article >, Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Government is mismanaged regardless of which wing of the effective single
>> party is in control. The problem is some people consider wasting money on X
>> acceptable but not wasting it on Y. One group supports democrats the
>> other republicans. I support neither because I feel both X and Y are a
>> unacceptable waste of money.
>
> Can Brent name a single Republican president or Congress that has
> submitted a balanced budget?

Why would I need to?

>> It will redistributed to Dr. Parker and those like him. There is no
>> social security (drastically reduced benefits at a much older age at
>> best) for people my age the way things are going, see the ssa website.

> Well, according the the SS trustees, even if nothing is done with the
> Social Security program it will be able to pay out full benefits until 2041,
> and then 78% of benefits from that point forward, in perpetuity.

78% of current dollars. That's not going to be worth much.

> Course, you aren't going to hear that truth from the Bush Administration.

Why not? 78% of todays near poverty level is going to be what after 35
years of inflation, even if it's a mere 1% per year on average?

>> What is yours? You seem to offer nothing but insults.

> I plan to continue to laugh as the American people continue to be Raped
> by the Conservative Right.
>
> Rape me next - the eternal Republican motto.

Or by the Liberal Left of the same effective party. The political
process in the USA is as if one asked you which leg you'd rather keep,
the left or the right.

In article >, Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> SS starts sending out more money than it takes in. It calls in the
>> 'loan'. Trouble is, the rest of government is spending more money than it
>> takes in too. Where does the money come from Dr. Parker?
>>
>> a) Borrow from someone else.
>> b) Raise taxes.
>
> c) Print more money
> d) Default on it's loans.

Those mean no more economy. Easier to just say no more SS. Depends on the
goals of those on-high.

>> I want out of SS.

> No problem. Go live in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a open minded liberal. BTW, could you learn to post
correctly?

>> I am disciplined enough to save my money without the
>> government taking it from me with only the promise to pay something
>> back.

> I See, you wish to give your money to a bank or corporation who in return
> can only promise to pay something back.
>
> Snicker...

Gold. Under my mattress is better than SS.

> So far Brent, under the Bush Administration, you have lost 1/3rd of your
> worth due to the decline in the AmeriKKKan dollar.
> Do you intend to send your money out of the country?

What exactly is your point? Under the left wing of the effective one
party system we'd be in about the same place. The thirdworlding of the
USA has been ongoing for decades regardless of D or R in office. The only
difference is the spin put on it by the major media sources.

>> Remember, SS is a tax, we have NO PROPERTY RIGHT to the money.
>> Congress could decide to kill SS at any time and give us nothing.

> And corporations can go bankrupt.

Who said anything about stock?

> Is that your fear Brent? That Republican fiscal mismanagement is now to
> the point where the government (the people) as you said earlier. will refuse
> to pay their debts?

The government has never practiced proper accounting methods, D or R in
office. At least in the last half century anyway. Mismanagement does not
depend on D's or R's. You'd know this if you paid attention. Go back to
LBJ and work your way forward if you need to.

> Wouldn't that make the American people thieves? Deadbeats?
> Snicker...

Currently the republic is dying because some americans are voting
themselves money from other americans. It's no longer about liberty, it's
about representives bringing money home. Money taken from other
americans. So yes, it is thievery. Social security, corporate welfare,
the whole lot of it is thievery.

>> (although, that I believe is part of the point, to create a
>> dependence and thusly votes to be in power. If we had property rights to
>> the money, the democrats couldn't play the 'republicans-are-going-to-take-
>> away-your-social-security' fear game.

> The Bush plan does include reducing dramatically SS payments to those
> who are just entering the system.

That's going to happen regardless sooner or later. But you're incorrect
or lying since there is no 'bush plan', just a rough outline proposed.
Nothing more than the rough outline Clinton proposed in 1999.

>> It's on par with drugs-are-going- to-kill-your-children and
>> the-terrorists-are-going-get- you.)
>
> Ah, the Republican agenda....

Both wings of the effective one party use fear.

>> There is no SS for me. The SSA says as much on their website. I pay SS
>> taxes my entire life, and when I turn 65 I'll get the finger, or shortly
>> there after. The pyramid will be rubble.

> Actually the SS website states that you will receive 78% of your entitled
> payments if nothing is done in the interveaning years.

78% of poverty level today will be what in 35 years?

> It also states that this 78% will be a higher payment than currently paid
> by Social Security due to the indexed rate of payback.

So 78% of poverty level. If I live to 120 I might just break even!

>> Even if the rest of the
>> government pays back SS. You'll get yours Dr. Parker, but there is no SS
>> for me. SSA reports going back at least 6 years show this. It's all on
>> the offical website for you to read.

> Snicker.... Nothing of the kind is posted there Brent
> Here in the reality based community we read the exact opposite.

Well quote it then. Quote that 78% figure. Get on it. I don't recall it
being so rosey in the reports I read.

Show me where that figure is from bright boy:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/trTOC.html

Even the simple Q/A proves your wrong:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
Q:I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what
can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
A:Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be
reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year
thereafter from presently scheduled levels.

So much for that.

>> 1) Do nothing.
>> 2) Have some bit in private accounts.

> Oh there are a multitude of alternates Brent. These include, increasing SS
> payroll taxes, decreasing the payout rates, pushing back the first year of
> retirement, and assuring that the government bonds that SS purchases have a
> sustained return of 5% annually.

They are not on the table at present.

> I'm sure there are a host of others.
> Stupid... Stupid... Brent...

Typical open minded liberal insulting away.

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Both wings of the effective one party love that, what's your point?
>>It's not like either wing is going to _cut_ anything, just slow the rate
>>of growth.
>
>
> Clinton presented several balanced budgets and achieved three.
>
> How many balanced budgets did Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. present?
>
> "Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." - American VP, Dick Cheney...
>
> Bend over and swallow hard Brent...
>
> Bahahahahahahahaha...
>

Reagan never pretended that deficit spending was a viable long-term
practice, however - or if he did, I missed that speech. To paraphrase,
"Mr Cheney, you're no Ronald Reagan."

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

> > c) Print more money
> > d) Default on it's loans.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Those mean no more economy. Easier to just say no more SS. Depends on the
> goals of those on-high.

The goals of those on high are to suck as much wealth from the
impoverished as possible. Isn't that clear to you by now Brent?

Snicker...

Once the U.S. elite have converted their monies to Euro's and Chinese
dollars the empty carcass of AmeriKKKa can be discarded as worthless....

"The oll doller - she's gonna go down." - Bill Gates, 2005.


> >> I want out of SS.
>
> > No problem. Go live in Afghanistan.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Nothing like a open minded liberal. BTW, could you learn to post
> correctly?

Oh come now. you would be free in Afghanistan. Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

bahahahahah....



> >> I am disciplined enough to save my money without the
> >> government taking it from me with only the promise to pay something
> >> back.
>
> > I See, you wish to give your money to a bank or corporation who in
return
> > can only promise to pay something back.
> >
> > Snicker...

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Gold. Under my mattress is better than SS.

An odd statement given that Gold continues it's rapid decline in value,
while SS payments increase in size at a rate greater than inflation.

It must be that great business accumin of yours talking.

Bahahahahah....

But seriously.. You should be investing in Afghan opium production. Lots
of money to be made there.




> > So far Brent, under the Bush Administration, you have lost 1/3rd of
your
> > worth due to the decline in the AmeriKKKan dollar.
> > Do you intend to send your money out of the country?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> What exactly is your point?

If you need to ask that question Brent, then you are truly.... Truly
braindead.


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Under the left wing of the effective one
> party system we'd be in about the same place.

So claims the braindead.




"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> The thirdworlding of the
> USA has been ongoing for decades regardless of D or R in office. The only
> difference is the spin put on it by the major media sources.

So claims the braindead.

However, here in the reality based community, we note that government
finances improve when Democrats have power, and dramatically decline when
Republicans have power.

This is a simple fact of history.



> >> Remember, SS is a tax, we have NO PROPERTY RIGHT to the money.
> >> Congress could decide to kill SS at any time and give us nothing.
>
> > And corporations can go bankrupt.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Who said anything about stock?

You gonna buy more gold Brent? Impoverish yourself even faster?

Bahahahahahahahahah............



> > Is that your fear Brent? That Republican fiscal mismanagement is now
to
> > the point where the government (the people) as you said earlier. will
refuse
> > to pay their debts?


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> The government has never practiced proper accounting methods, D or R in
> office. At least in the last half century anyway. Mismanagement does not
> depend on D's or R's. You'd know this if you paid attention. Go back to
> LBJ and work your way forward if you need to.

It's only been since Ronald Reagan took office and began the destruction
of AmeriKKKa in earnest, that accounting firms have refused to certify the
U.S. federal budget.

All Republicans are Liars. You seem to forget that Brent.



> > Wouldn't that make the American people thieves? Deadbeats?
> > Snicker...

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Currently the republic is dying because some americans are voting
> themselves money from other americans. It's no longer about liberty, it's
> about representives bringing money home. Money taken from other
> americans. So yes, it is thievery. Social security, corporate welfare,
> the whole lot of it is thievery.

And it's just a coincidence that this "thievery" as you put it, takes
place at a time when Consecutive Republican Administrations are found guilty
of the highest levels of deceit in U.S. history?

All Republicans are Liars. You seem to forget that Brent.



> >> (although, that I believe is part of the point, to create a
> >> dependence and thusly votes to be in power. If we had property rights
to
> >> the money, the democrats couldn't play the
'republicans-are-going-to-take-
> >> away-your-social-security' fear game.
>
> > The Bush plan does include reducing dramatically SS payments to
those
> > who are just entering the system.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> That's going to happen regardless sooner or later. But you're incorrect
> or lying since there is no 'bush plan', just a rough outline proposed.
> Nothing more than the rough outline Clinton proposed in 1999.

You mean the U.S. economy isn't going to grow it's way out of the 160
trillion in debt that is projected for it?

You mean there has been a sustained campaign of lies told by the last 5
Republican administrations over the last 30 years?

You know... You are right....





"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> >> There is no SS for me. The SSA says as much on their website. I pay SS
> >> taxes my entire life, and when I turn 65 I'll get the finger, or
shortly
> >> there after. The pyramid will be rubble.
>
> > Actually the SS website states that you will receive 78% of your
entitled
> > payments if nothing is done in the interveaning years.
>
"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> 78% of poverty level today will be what in 35 years?

More than zero, which means that you are a liar to have said it was zero.

But also more than the poverty level, as a result of Social Security,
seniors no longer live on or even below the poverty line in AmeriKKKa.

Bush wishes to end that state of affairs.


> > It also states that this 78% will be a higher payment than currently
paid
> > by Social Security due to the indexed rate of payback.
>
> So 78% of poverty level. If I live to 120 I might just break even!

More than zero, which means that you are a liar to have said it was zero.

But also more than the poverty level, as a result of Social Security,
seniors no longer live on or even below the poverty line in AmeriKKKa.

Bush wishes to end that state of affairs.




"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Even the simple Q/A proves your wrong:
> http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
> Q:I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what
> can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
> A:Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be
> reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year
> thereafter from presently scheduled levels.
>
> So much for that.

Oh, excuse me. It's not 78%, it's 73%..... Your claim -> 0%.

Thanx for proving yourself to be a liar Brent....

Snicker....




>
> >> 1) Do nothing.
> >> 2) Have some bit in private accounts.
>
> > Oh there are a multitude of alternates Brent. These include,
increasing SS
> > payroll taxes, decreasing the payout rates, pushing back the first year
of
> > retirement, and assuring that the government bonds that SS purchases
have a
> > sustained return of 5% annually.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> They are not on the table at present.

Of course they are. The fact that Bush refuses to consider them is simply
more proof of his dishonesty.

I'm afraid that the execution of several hundered thousand Republicans for
the crime of treason is now inevitable.

Let the games begin....

> In article >, Vendicar Decarian
wrote:
> > Can Brent name a single Republican president or Congress that has
> > submitted a balanced budget?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Why would I need to?

Perhaps you would like to support your mindless assertions with some
facts. But since they are mindless, it is clear that you can't.

This is just one of the many strategies that self confessed "free
thinkers" (snicker) use to keep themselves ignorant and disconnected from
reality.

Thank you for providing the illustration Brent.


> >> It will redistributed to Dr. Parker and those like him. There is no
> >> social security (drastically reduced benefits at a much older age at
> >> best) for people my age the way things are going, see the ssa website.
>
> > Well, according the the SS trustees, even if nothing is done with the
> > Social Security program it will be able to pay out full benefits until
2041,
> > and then 78% of benefits from that point forward, in perpetuity.
>
"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> 78% of current dollars. That's not going to be worth much.

Bzzzzt. Wrong again Brent. It's 78% - your reference says 73% of planned
scheduled payments that are adjusted for cost of living, and which
Conservatives complain are adjusted at too high a rate.

That's 78% (73%) of payments that are higher than todays in real terms.

Then again you claimed it was 0%, contrary to your own reference....

Snicker.... Stupid... Stupid... Brent...



> > Course, you aren't going to hear that truth from the Bush
Administration.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Why not? 78% of todays near poverty level is going to be what after 35
> years of inflation, even if it's a mere 1% per year on average?

Bzzzzt. Wrong again Brent. It's 78% - your reference says 73% of planned
scheduled payments that are adjusted for cost of living, and which
Conservatives complain are adjusted at too high a rate.

That's 78% (73%) of payments that are higher than todays in real terms.

Then again you claimed it was 0%, contrary to your own reference.

Snicker.... Stupid... Stupid... Brent...


> >> What is yours? You seem to offer nothing but insults.
>
> > I plan to continue to laugh as the American people continue to be
Raped
> > by the Conservative Right.
> >
> > Rape me next - the eternal Republican motto.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Or by the Liberal Left of the same effective party.

Brent is a fine observer of details. Claiming that 78% of 2.89 = 0 and
that Republican fiscal mismanagement = Liberal fiscal integrity.

Stupid... Stupid... Brent...



"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> The political
> process in the USA is as if one asked you which leg you'd rather keep,
> the left or the right.

The problem is, NeoRepublicanism has left Brent no leg to stand on.

Hence he continues to fall flat on his face.

So long suckers.....

In article >, Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Both wings of the effective one party love that, what's your point?
>> It's not like either wing is going to _cut_ anything, just slow the rate
>> of growth.
>
> Clinton presented several balanced budgets and achieved three.

If you believe DC math... but so what? one democrat. And he didn't even
make up for LBJ with the luck of the market.

> How many balanced budgets did Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. present?
>
> "Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." - American VP, Dick Cheney...
> Bend over and swallow hard Brent...
> Bahahahahahahahaha...

You really do have a mental problem, you should seek help. Seriously,
seek help. !democrat != republican.