| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2004 08:13:22 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Question about the Democrats' failed Social Security scheme |
"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in message
news:cq1cnt07lk@drn.newsguy.com...
OrionCA says...
"Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal
casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure
by government to fulfill its primary role of
national defence. But Democrats who complained that
Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence
re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This
is not a serious party."
Whoever said that is not a serious commentator. The
comparison is stupid.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Actually, the comparison is quite valid.
The Democrat Party has become a joke.
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Democrats' failed Social Security scheme |
19 Dec 2004 03:41:50 AM |
|
|
What are you talking about?
Your topic doesn't agree with your post, and your post makes no sense to
begin with.
Did you mean to say that the Democratic Party is a joke because they
pointed out to Bush and the rest of the nation, that there was no link
between Iraq and 9/11, that attacking them was unrelated to the War on
Terror against the Teleban? Osama, btw, is still free as a bird.
As for Social Security, under the current scheme, you pay in when you
are younger, and withdraw when you are older.
Under Bush's new scheme, you pay in when you are younger, and you
withdraw when you are older.
Under the old scheme, the government managed the money, with an overhead
of 1 to 2 percent, and under Bush's new scheme, Wall Street will get to
manage some of the money, with an overhead of 25 percent.
So, you like the new scheme better?
Boy, are you a moron.
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in message
news:cq1cnt07lk@drn.newsguy.com...
OrionCA says...
"Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal
casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure
by government to fulfill its primary role of
national defence. But Democrats who complained that
Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence
re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This
is not a serious party."
Whoever said that is not a serious commentator. The
comparison is stupid.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Actually, the comparison is quite valid.
The Democrat Party has become a joke.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Democrats' failed Social Security scheme |
19 Dec 2004 10:42:07 AM |
|
|
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:sIidnYhQ0-p90VjcRVn-1w@giganews.com...
What are you talking about?
Your topic doesn't agree with your post, and your post makes no sense to begin
with.
Did you mean to say that the Democratic Party is a joke because they pointed
out to Bush and the rest of the nation, that there was no link between Iraq
and 9/11,
That wasn't the reason given for
invading Iraq. In other words, a
red herring.
that attacking them was unrelated to the War on Terror against the Teleban?
That wasn't the reason given for
invading Iraq. In other words, a
red herring.
Osama, btw, is still free as a bird.
You have a strange concept of freedom.
As for Social Security, under the current scheme, you pay in when you are
younger, and withdraw when you are older.
Under Bush's new scheme, you pay in when you are younger, and you withdraw
when you are older.
Under the old scheme, the government managed the money, with an overhead of 1
to 2 percent, and under Bush's new scheme, Wall Street will get to manage some
of the money, with an overhead of 25 percent.
What is the rate of return on the money
you put into Social Security? What is
the rate of return if that same amount
had been invested in a Dow tracking
account on Wall Street?
So, you like the new scheme better?
Boy, are you a moron.
Once you check the numbers, the
true moron will be exposed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Democrats' failed Social Security scheme |
19 Dec 2004 06:16:46 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Question about the Democrats' failed Social Security scheme
From: "Bob" no@email.address
Date: 12/19/2004 11:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <38ixd.23232$rO2.19179@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
What is the rate of return on the money
you put into Social Security?
Nothing because congress loots the money. The social secuirty had a surplus of
$166,000,000,000 in 2004. That is far from being in trouble. The problem is
congress and the president do not want to force the rich to pay taxes which
will be required if they have to pay our the money looted.
had been invested in a Dow tracking
account on Wall Street?
Zero because Congress will have control of the money. You will get
notification but like all other accounts, congress will actually loot the
money.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
