Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just couldn't resist poking fun at this (bad) idea from several years ago. Keep this financial meltdown in mind next time some politician recycles the idea.

---

In 1916 an Italian immigrant named Charles Ponzi created an investment fund that paid large dividends without making any investments. Money from new investors was transferred to old investors, while the new investors received money from newer investors yet. The system had flexibility and boldness, and worked as long as an ever-expanding pool of suckers could be found.

Charles Ponzi made a profit on this, and so does the U.S. government. Social Security payroll-tax receipts have always been greater than Social Security benefit payments and will continue to be until about 2013, when the baby-boom sucker pool retires. The federal government has taken this surplus revenue, spent it and given the Social Security trust-fund IOUs in return. That is, the government spent the money and then promised to spend it again later.

Having a Social Security trust fund is exactly like not having a Social Security trust fund. Social Security will go into the red no matter what. Without a trust fund, the government will have to pay off the Social Security deficit by raising taxes and cutting benefits. With a trust fund, the government will have to pay off the Social Security IOUs by raising taxes and cutting benefits.

The only real solution to Social Security is to own it -- privatize the whole system of national social insurance. This would still leave us with enormous unfunded liabilities owed to people too old to go private. But we'll have those anyway. And privatization would work. There is no twenty-year period in American history when stocks lost money. And even from 1930 to 1939, a conservative portfolio -- half stocks, half bonds -- would possibly have made 0.68 percent a year. That's not a spectacular return, but it beats waiting until we're sixty-five to rummage in the Silver Tabs for change to buy cat food.

Privatization, however, will happen at about the same time Al Gore and Liddy Dole get naked and hook up. Thirty-eight percent of the federal budget is spent on Social Security and other social insurance. By 2020 that share will be between fifty-nine and sixty-eight percent. Two-thirds of a politician's throw weight will come from controlling social-insurance dollars. Money is power. What use is it to endure the Dutch rubs and Indian rope burns that are politics if you can't obtain mastery over people and give them noogies back? Politicians would rather discard their spouses than discard two-thirds of their power. Some politicians would much, much rather.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0599ponzi.htm]





It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
When will AU post things that make sense?


Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yasee Rapo, instead of throwing money into a government scheme...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavalier:
With the stock market, we know with certainty that some investments will make money, and some will lose it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hi-larious picture PN, but it didn't need the nonsensical text beneath it.

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Yes, because Chrissy likes pictures, but those pesky words cause him ever so much trouble!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
How's that roaring economy going, Rap ?

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Yes, because Chrissy likes pictures, but those pesky words cause him ever so much trouble!

---

This from the guy who can't tell the difference between "then" and "than"...

Mike

.

---

Quote:

---

Would have been great if the Demcorats hadn't screwed up the mortgage industry.

---

Quote:

---

Would have been great if the Republicans hadn't screwed up the mortgage industry.

I mean, WOW! Did they screw it up - BAD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And while it's true Clinton signed the bill - it was passed in 1999 by a repubican Congress. That's an extra 3/4 lie. Because it was part of a repubican agenda, sponsored and pushed by repubicans and passed by repubican Congress. In fact the bill was sponsored by Phil Gramm (a repubican) as part of the (repubican) mantra of deregulation and privatization started by Reagan (a repubican). So the whole screwed-up mess is really IS all according to the repubican plan, isn't it ?

So, are you now saying that the repubican deregulation and privatization agenda is a BAD thing ? That Reagan and Phil Gramm were wrong ? That what was needed was to keep the existing regulations in place, or even expand them ? Because that's where your logic (such as it is) leads.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Would have been great if the Republicans hadn't screwed up the mortgage industry.

I mean, WOW! Did they screw it up - BAD.

---

There, fixed that for you.

---

Quote:

---

Now, short selling was made illegal by the uptick rule, passed in the thrities by Democrats, and repealed in 2007, by Republicans

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Bill Clinton left behind a two-year recession"

That's your first lie.

---

Sorry, that's no lie, that's FACT. That you don't care to be reminded of it is a non issue. None of Bush's policies had taken place by March of 2001, not even close.

Quote:

---

So Bill Clinton oversaw an unprecedented EXPANSION of the economy.

---

Oversaw, as in he was sitting in the White House while it occurred, but he had little to do w/ the expansion of the economy. It was primarily the bogus dot-com bubble which blew up the stock market.

Quote:

---

And while it's true Clinton signed the bill - it was passed in 1999 by a repubican Congress. That's an extra 3/4 lie. Because it was part of a repubican agenda, sponsored and pushed by repubicans and passed by repubican Congress. In fact the bill was sponsored by Phil Gramm (a repubican) as part of the (republican) mantra of deregulation and privatization started by Reagan (a repubican). So the whole screwed-up mess is really IS all according to the repubican plan, isn't it ?

So, are you now saying that the repubican deregulation and privatization agenda is a BAD thing ? That Reagan and Phil Gramm were wrong ? That what was needed was to keep the existing regulations in place, or even expand them ? Because that's where your logic (such as it is) leads.

---

It was poor management, not deregulation , which was the big down fall. And it wasn't just all 'Clinton', but the likes of Elliot Spitzer who also had a hand in this debacle. Spitzer ran a very public witch hunt posing as a trial against then Chairman / CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg of A.I.G., alleging fraudulent business practice, securities fraud, common law fraud, and other violations of insurance and securities laws. Despite tough talk on a television news show, Spitzer declined to bring any criminal charges against Greenberg, and two of the civil charges were dropped in September 2006.






It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:



It was poor management, not deregulation , which was the big down fall.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
In China they'd be lined up and shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, w/ all due respect, you have no clue of what you're talking about. Please, do us and yourself a favor and keep quiet.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry brother, but this mess has been stewing for FAR longer than '07, as you'd have us believe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
... like most politicos, ready to lay blame but not to take it. We're all in this together, and share equal blame for allowing this bi-partisan greed to wrap its crusty white digits around our collective throats.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry brother, but this mess has been stewing for FAR longer than '07, as you'd have us believe

---

Quote:

---

In China they'd be lined up and shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Sorry brother, but this mess has been stewing for FAR longer than '07, as you'd have us believe

---

yeah, it goes back to Ronnie Raygun, Bush I, and Bush II.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

In China they'd be lined up and shot.

---

In China, so would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the entire Bush Administration. And I'd have no problem with that.

After all, the fish rots from the head.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

What is MOST notable was how weak the recovery was under Bush's policies - one could say that the US still hasn't recovered. And that, my brainless friend, IS due to Bush.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Reaganomics had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do w/ the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, Limey.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny that you saying " in a period following GOP control ", whn in fact we ARE in a period of Democratic control, and have been for 2 yrs, in both House and Senate, that you'd dismiss the fault of those who are at fault here, the Democrats, and try to lay blame on the GOP.

---

Quote:

---

Talk about derangement syndrome !

---

Quote:

---

Talking to a wall would yield more understanding than what I'm attempting to do here. At least the wall stands for something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny that you saying " in a period following GOP control ", whn in fact we ARE in a period of Democratic control, and have been for 2 yrs, in both House and Senate

---

Quote:

---

It's funny that you saying " in a period following GOP control ", whn in fact we ARE in a period of Democratic control, and have been for 2 yrs, in both House and Senate...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yasee Rapo, instead of throwing money into a government scheme, we can throw it into an investment bank and housing bubble scheme!!!

YEAH! THAT'S IT!

Makes just as much sense as basing your retirement on Enron stock, doesn't it???

---

Quote:

---

Here's an idea. You throw your money where you want, I put mine where I think is best. Everybody's happy. Whadya say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Fine, and when it's gone, it's GONE. No bailouts, no help from "the nanny state". You're 100% on your own. Can't retire on your retirement funds when they've all dried up and blown away? Good then, die. Be a bum on the street. Just don't go looking for any help from your government.

---

Quote:

---

Privatizing Social Security and putting that money in the market makes just about as much sense as taking it all to Vegas and putting it on Red 11 on the roulette wheel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny that you saying " in a period following GOP control ", whn in fact we ARE in a period of Democratic control, and have been for 2 yrs, in both House and Senate

---

More AU dis-logic. The economy is roaring...but when that flag no longer flies at all, oh, but we were in Democratic control!!! Last year when you were spouting off about how great we were doing, was THAT due to the Democratic control you now claim we've been under? You make less sense than a blind man w/a tin cup.
Have it both ways why doncha? You REALLY can't even see this working in your head, can you? The way you take facts and apply them the way it always looks worst for your mortal enemies & spawn of Satan, the Democrats?
I can only assume your dad must have been a child-beater that also happened to vote Democrat- this is the only way you could be so hard-wired in this fashion (Pre-apology if I'm actually correct on that- ya never know...).

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's a typical response by those , like yourself, who get so frustrated that they're hopelessly outwitted and outclassed in this debate, they have to resort to such petty antics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
You said Bush's policies couldn't have come into effect two years after taking office.

---

Quote:

---

It's funny how Democrat policies do come into immediate effect, when it comes time to apportion blame. Further more you place the whole responsibility for the mortgage deregulation at the feet of Clinton, you can't have it both ways, either the congress had nothing to do with it for both Bush and Clinton, or they did. Which is it?

---

Quote:

---

As I said, saying that a peice of deregulation proposed by a Republican congress is all down to Clinton is misleading at best. Saying one piece of deregulation undertaken during a Democrat Presidency is solely responsible, while the reams of deregulation undertaken by Republicans had nothing to do with it, is at best a Partisan delusion, and at worse a flat out and deliberate lie.

Indeed, you're argument is self-contradictory, unsubstantial and illogical. It hinges on laying all the blame on a person who hasn't been in power since the last millennium, what do you do for an encore? Blame Emperor Nero for the invasion of Iraq?

---

Quote:

---

]As I said, the more you scream and insult, the more wrong you look and the more you undermine your own argument, so please do continue, you're only helping me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The economy WAS doing fine, showing growth in 48 straight months, but the time bomb the Democrats had the majority hand in setting up was set to go off, and it did.

---

Quote:

---

You go ahead and make childish comments about my parents, because we all know it's all you have , since facts and history aren't on your side. It's a typical response by those , like yourself, who get so frustrated that they're hopelessly outwitted and outclassed in this debate, they have to resort to such petty antics.

---