Beware of what Gramm is saying to McCain

[CHANGE]

I love pro-choice liberals who want to deny choice and force everyone into their latest scheme. They have a puzzling amount of faith in the same government that gave us Amtrack, VA hospitals and the Hurricane Katrina response.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help!

[The Lib Terminator]

greynomo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your bias and extremism is always showing. Gee even your sign off is extreme. You sir, sound like you are extremly unbalanced. BTW/ Gramm gave two claifications and both were "back peddling". Your man McCain constantly flip flops and back pedddles. If he can even remember the bill or the country he's speaking of. Good luck with that.

Comrade greynomo,

And your mother wears combat boots too.

My, oh my, how a tither leftwing extremists become when someone describes there actions and activities to a tee.

WHINERS!

Whine, Whine Whine, that is all you can do when faced with the fact. NO facts, no credible comebacks just whine.

You mention flip flop, well I want to talk about the flop flipper in chief, Nobama.

He changes his tune on the same subject sometimes in one day. He has been on the Republican side on most issues. He has supported the 2nd Amendment, he was prolife, he supported and agreed the surge is working, he stated he will not raise taxes. There is much much more.

Well with Nobama supporting Republican issues why vote Nobama. AS I say NO-bama.

For Cross, Gun & Oil

Terminating liberals at will.

liberalismisasin.com

[Bob]

The Lib Terminator wrote:

<quoted text>
Comrade greynomo,
And your mother wears combat boots too.
My, oh my, how a tither leftwing extremists become when someone describes there actions and activities to a tee.
WHINERS!
Whine, Whine Whine, that is all you can do when faced with the fact. NO facts, no credible comebacks just whine.
You mention flip flop, well I want to talk about the flop flipper in chief, Nobama.
He changes his tune on the same subject sometimes in one day. He has been on the Republican side on most issues. He has supported the 2nd Amendment, he was prolife, he supported and agreed the surge is working, he stated he will not raise taxes. There is much much more.
Well with Nobama supporting Republican issues why vote Nobama. AS I say NO-bama.
For Cross, Gun & Oil
Terminating liberals at will.
liberalismisasin.com

And you Jerry, are the biggest whiner of all. There isn't one fact in your post, just whine whine whine about Obama with your usual lies. This actually had been an intelligent discussion about economics between people with different opinions, until you showed up to crap in the punch bowl. Take your factless, moronic posts and stick them on a thread where the rest of the childish whiners have yet to learn how to have a difference of opinion without name calling. You have the emotional and intellectual development of a five year old.

[Econ 101]

walt wrote:

<quoted text>But the guy earning 65,000 pays all those taxes as well. In doing so a higher percent of his income goes to taxes.Same thing is true with the soc sec tax. The guy in the middle income bracket pays a much higher percentage of his salary than a person making so much more.On the other hand a $200,000 income in small town USA is quite a different thing than it is for a person living in a large city. There your point is well taken.
About the return on Soc sec. When making the compsrison with other types of investment opportunities I always see just dollar for dollar. Soc sec also includes in its benefit packgage what I consider to be a very generous income protection plan.To puchase an income prtection plan that pays as well as SS does would be very expensive. When you make the comparison between the return from SS with that of a private account does it include the cost of an income protection plan as generous as the one offered by SS? I have met people who do collect under this provision.
So when a comparison is made I think that it is only fair to compare the cost of the entire package.

What do you mean by income preotection? Technically, a dollar you put away today is worth far less than a dolla recieved back 20 years from now due to inflation. If i recall, private accounts mean you control it and could put the money in a cd, which as long as it is under $100k is guaranteed by FDIC. That would be guarnteed as long as you dont take it and spend it. you could also save your money over the years and but an annuity which wil also give you lifetime income.
The government spend the actual taxes collected for ss and then uses current revenues to pay you back, sort of like the ultimate pyramid scheme.

[Pdamerica org]

Pdamerica org wrote:

McCain guru linked to subprime crisis
3/28/08 / http://tinyurl.com/2ujo9b
The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.
“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech.“But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”
Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.
A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.
Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.
During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.
For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more then $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/924...

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everyone Else
http://tinyurl.com/ydf6r6 / April 18, 2004
One of the country's top investigative reporters reveals how the richest people within the top 1 percent of the country has rigged the tax code and other laws in its favor.
Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston has been breaking pieces of this story on the front page of The New York Times for nine years, work for which one business school professor calls him ìthe de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United Statesî. With Perfectly Legal, he puts the whole shocking narrative together in a way that will stir up media attention and make readers angry about the state of our country. And he has sound advice on what to do.
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/...

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense
(And Stick You with the Bill) January 18, 2008
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book,“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).” Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lu...

[walt]

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean by income preotection? Technically, a dollar you put away today is worth far less than a dolla recieved back 20 years from now due to inflation. If i recall, private accounts mean you control it and could put the money in a cd, which as long as it is under $100k is guaranteed by FDIC. That would be guarnteed as long as you dont take it and spend it. you could also save your money over the years and but an annuity which wil also give you lifetime income.
The government spend the actual taxes collected for ss and then uses current revenues to pay you back, sort of like the ultimate pyramid scheme.

I have known people who collected SS due to the death of the wage earner in the family. A certain amount per dependant until that dependant was 18 or no longer a student. Like an income protection plan offered by an insurance company.
Don't know exactly how you qualify but like I said I did meet people who were collecting.

[Econ 101]

walt wrote:

<quoted text>I have known people who collected SS due to the death of the wage earner in the family. A certain amount per dependant until that dependant was 18 or no longer a student. Like an income protection plan offered by an insurance company.
Don't know exactly how you qualify but like I said I did meet people who were collecting.

but how is that different than buying term life insuarnce or disability insurance. I'm sure somewhere there are studies about how much you would pay for these various plans and invest the difference vs. how much you pay into social security and how much you receive back.

I am looking at my ss statement right now. it says that i have paid $73,000 into ss and my employer contributions are $77,000 so i have already contributed $150,000 and still have 20 years more of paying when at 62 yrs old i get $1600 a month. that is less than 20k per year.

if i took that 73k of my own, added the 6k per year and it all grew at just 4%(reasonable average money market or cd rate) at the end of 20 years I would have over 330k, of my OWN money.

[walt]

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
but how is that different than buying term life insuarnce or disability insurance. I'm sure somewhere there are studies about how much you would pay for these various plans and invest the difference vs. how much you pay into social security and how much you receive back.
I am looking at my ss statement right now. it says that i have paid $73,000 into ss and my employer contributions are $77,000 so i have already contributed $150,000 and still have 20 years more of paying when at 62 yrs old i get $1600 a month. that is less than 20k per year.
if i took that 73k of my own, added the 6k per year and it all grew at just 4%(reasonable average money market or cd rate) at the end of 20 years I would have over 330k, of my OWN money.

Did a little calculation. Took your 330k and assumed a withdrawal of 6% at retirement time.It comes to 1650 a month and that would be taxed as regular income.SS is taxed but not the entire amount.
I really don't know if there is an insurance product that would actually. Went to one of those retirement seminars sponsored by one of the local investment houses. Got into a discussion afterwords with a lady whose husband died and she was on SS. I recall her saying that she couldn't go to work because she would not be able to find a job that would pay as much as she was receiving. And if she got a job the payments would stop.As the each child became of age the payments stopped.
I saw the situation as both good and bad. Good for the kids but left the lady with a real problem.Anyway, I figured if a private insurer offered a program like that it would have to be very expensive. And that is as far as I went with it.

[walt]

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
but how is that different than buying term life insuarnce or disability insurance. I'm sure somewhere there are studies about how much you would pay for these various plans and invest the difference vs. how much you pay into social security and how much you receive back.
I am looking at my ss statement right now. it says that i have paid $73,000 into ss and my employer contributions are $77,000 so i have already contributed $150,000 and still have 20 years more of paying when at 62 yrs old i get $1600 a month. that is less than 20k per year.
if i took that 73k of my own, added the 6k per year and it all grew at just 4%(reasonable average money market or cd rate) at the end of 20 years I would have over 330k, of my OWN money.

Sorry, didn't complete a thought. I am not sure that there is an insurance product that would compare with that particular benefit.

[Econ 101]

walt wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, didn't complete a thought. I am not sure that there is an insurance product that would compare with that particular benefit.

variable annuity

[The Lib Terminator]

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
And you Jerry, are the biggest whiner of all. There isn't one fact in your post, just whine whine whine about Obama with your usual lies. This actually had been an intelligent discussion about economics between people with different opinions, until you showed up to crap in the punch bowl. Take your factless, moronic posts and stick them on a thread where the rest of the childish whiners have yet to learn how to have a difference of opinion without name calling. You have the emotional and intellectual development of a five year old.

Comrade Bob,

Folks!

This rant is a typical radical leftwing extremist response by a political apparatchik of the extreme left.

They hate opposing views that show their ignorance of anything.

Now they act so arrogant and believe that only their view is worthy of being written. They use nothing but sudo-Gestapo tactics in attempts to silence credible opposition to the destruction of American values.

Their vision is one of a Socialist America. And they don't care how they have to lie, steal, cheat or maybe even worst. I would not put any nefarious activity out of bounds for them. The facts speak for themselves. Just as in this rant of his.

He states no real facts, just extremist innuendo vitriol and maybe even a little lie.

For Cross, Gun & Oil

Terminating liberals at will.

liberalismisasin.com

We need oil.

We have oil.

DRILL HERE!

DRILL NOW!

PAY LESS!(unless your an extremist, you want all Americans to pay even more than $5.)

God Bless America.

Support energy independence for America.

Oppose Democrat leadership embargo on drilling for oil we have and need.

[Bob]

The Lib Terminator wrote:

<quoted text>
Comrade Bob,
Folks!
This rant is a typical radical leftwing extremist response by a political apparatchik of the extreme left.
They hate opposing views that show their ignorance of anything.
Now they act so arrogant and believe that only their view is worthy of being written. They use nothing but sudo-Gestapo tactics in attempts to silence credible opposition to the destruction of American values.
Their vision is one of a Socialist America. And they don't care how they have to lie, steal, cheat or maybe even worst. I would not put any nefarious activity out of bounds for them. The facts speak for themselves. Just as in this rant of his.
He states no real facts, just extremist innuendo vitriol and maybe even a little lie.
For Cross, Gun & Oil
Terminating liberals at will.
liberalismisasin.com
We need oil.
We have oil.
DRILL HERE!
DRILL NOW!
PAY LESS!(unless your an extremist, you want all Americans to pay even more than $5.)
God Bless America.
Support energy independence for America.
Oppose Democrat leadership embargo on drilling for oil we have and need.

Silly Jerry, I hate to burst your bubble, but the EIA from our own Dept of Energy has already stated that drilling in ANWAR and off the continental shelf will not produce oil for at least nine years. At that time, it will be priced on the global market as it is now. The EIA said it would lower the price of a barrel of oil in 2017 by about 75 cents. In other words, it will have no effect.

[Avis]

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
but how is that different than buying term life insuarnce or disability insurance. I'm sure somewhere there are studies about how much you would pay for these various plans and invest the difference vs. how much you pay into social security and how much you receive back.
I am looking at my ss statement right now. it says that i have paid $73,000 into ss and my employer contributions are $77,000 so i have already contributed $150,000 and still have 20 years more of paying when at 62 yrs old i get $1600 a month. that is less than 20k per year.
if i took that 73k of my own, added the 6k per year and it all grew at just 4%(reasonable average money market or cd rate) at the end of 20 years I would have over 330k, of my OWN money.

You are assuming that everyone behaves responsibly. We already know that most people don't or can't. One of the ideas on the table to get people to save for their own retirement is to automatically sign them up for a 401K plan. They'd have to fill out a paper to opt out.

I've got an IRA with fairly conservative investments but my bottom line took a hit this year with the market in free fall.

At least with Social Security the payments are guaranteed.

[Econ 101]

Avis wrote:

<quoted text>
You are assuming that everyone behaves responsibly. We already know that most people don't or can't. One of the ideas on the table to get people to save for their own retirement is to automatically sign them up for a 401K plan. They'd have to fill out a paper to opt out.
I've got an IRA with fairly conservative investments but my bottom line took a hit this year with the market in free fall.
At least with Social Security the payments are guaranteed.

Payments are guaranteed but the returns suck and are significantly less than historical returns on most other investments.

1-Nobody said the market goes up forever but EVERY rolling 10 year period since the early 1900's has produced better gains than bonds, cash or inflation.

2- are you retiring this year? if not then what does it matter how much it went down this year.

3- I dont know what your definition is of conservative. To some it may be a boring utility stock (which can still go down but generally pays good dividends) or safe could be a CD or money market, which will never go down in value and is fdic insured.

4- You took a hit this year- big deal. How much have you put in over time, do you contribute regularly, are you well diversified, do you do your homework. My guess is if you do it right and wait 20 or 30m years you will be fine.

Too many people do not truly understand the dynamics of the markets and as you pointed out, do not act rationally.

[please]

Actually, if you look at all federal taxes combined, the middle income guy is NOT paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes, the upper income folks pay the highest percentage (data showing this is available on the Congressional Budget Office web site). That is only true if you look at SS in isolation. Since SS benefits are capped no matter how much you pay into the system, I think there is a valid fairness argument for capping contributions. On the other hand, I think you can argue that the wealthy may benefit the most from other types of federal spending, so there is a similar fairness argument that supports that they should pay the most in other federal tax.

walt wrote:

<quoted text>But the guy earning 65,000 pays all those taxes as well. In doing so a higher percent of his income goes to taxes.Same thing is true with the soc sec tax. The guy in the middle income bracket pays a much higher percentage of his salary than a person making so much more.

[The Lib Terminator]

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly Jerry, I hate to burst your bubble, but the EIA from our own Dept of Energy has already stated that drilling in ANWAR and off the continental shelf will not produce oil for at least nine years. At that time, it will be priced on the global market as it is now. The EIA said it would lower the price of a barrel of oil in 2017 by about 75 cents. In other words, it will have no effect.

Comrade Bob,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is not the only source of an opinion.

The facts are as I have stated that we do have more energy and that it can be here in far less that 10 years.

I have heard experts say that it could take 1-2 years to get that oil.

I have been in the heavy construction business and have experience in large construction projects. I worked for a company who's business was the oil business. 10 years is preposterous especially with the seriousness of the situation.

The fact is tha is one view. But for that to take place we would have to make all kinds of procurement mistakes and mistake of where to dig by hundreds of miles.

The fact is as I stated it would not take near as long as you wish it would take.

You are also wrong about the price being lowered by only 17 cent by 2017. You know nothing about how free markets work. You peddle socialism, remember.

You need to stay off those ideoligical sources of wrong information. WE don't need political information. We need the facts, "just the facts ma'am".

Did you know that there is an energy independence bill in Congress sponsored by a group of nonparizan Republicans and Democrats to drill for oil that has already been confirmed to be there by geologists?

But you don't believe geologists do you? You believe Al Gore and his minions who oppose drilling.

Who is fighting the effort to keep the embargo on against drilling for oil we know is there?

The liberal Democrat leadership. Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leaders are blocking the non-partizan effort to make America energy independent. They are the ones responsible for keeping gas prices at all time hi's.

We do have energy.

We need energy.

DRILL HERE!

DRILL NOW!

PAY LESS!

For Cross, Gun & Oil

Terminating liberals at will.

liberalismisasin.com

[True Moral Conservative]

I don't mind what Phil Gramm says. McCain said that he doesn't agree with Gramm. That, however, is besides the point. What Gramm says doesn't matter so much. What voters do matters most. Who we choose to vote for the the issues we choose to battle are what count. Like me and my friends, we take many of these issues in our own hands by being at local meetings and trying to change local policy to benefit the constituents.

Gramm can say what he wants. He can either be right or wrong. But people who have time to be active should be active. That is how all of this crap will get resolved. Seems like a long shot, but it's the best shot.

[walt]

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
variable annuity

Don't think so.Cost too high and the pay out was in that case was a few k a month until the 3 children came of age.Talked with my son recently. He was wounded in the firstIraq war and is on permanent disability.He found out that he is eligable for Soc sec also.So he will collect. Could be that the real problem is thatSS does too much.

[Bob]

The Lib Terminator wrote:

<quoted text>
Comrade Bob,
Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is not the only source of an opinion.
The facts are as I have stated that we do have more energy and that it can be here in far less that 10 years.
I have heard experts say that it could take 1-2 years to get that oil.
I have been in the heavy construction business and have experience in large construction projects. I worked for a company who's business was the oil business. 10 years is preposterous especially with the seriousness of the situation.
The fact is tha is one view. But for that to take place we would have to make all kinds of procurement mistakes and mistake of where to dig by hundreds of miles.
The fact is as I stated it would not take near as long as you wish it would take.
You are also wrong about the price being lowered by only 17 cent by 2017. You know nothing about how free markets work. You peddle socialism, remember.
You need to stay off those ideoligical sources of wrong information. WE don't need political information. We need the facts, "just the facts ma'am".
Did you know that there is an energy independence bill in Congress sponsored by a group of nonparizan Republicans and Democrats to drill for oil that has already been confirmed to be there by geologists?
But you don't believe geologists do you? You believe Al Gore and his minions who oppose drilling.
Who is fighting the effort to keep the embargo on against drilling for oil we know is there?
The liberal Democrat leadership. Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leaders are blocking the non-partizan effort to make America energy independent. They are the ones responsible for keeping gas prices at all time hi's.
We do have energy.
We need energy.
DRILL HERE!
DRILL NOW!
PAY LESS!
For Cross, Gun & Oil
Terminating liberals at will.
liberalismisasin.com

You idiot, the report that says it will take at least nine years and have little effect on the price of gas is from the US Dept of Energy's EIA, not Al Gore. Do you really expect it to magically appear in your gas tank next year? It'll probably get sold to China.

So now you're accusing the US government of lying? All those hundreds of people compiling data at the EIA have made it all up? And I'm supposed to believe you over the US Dept of Energy because you worked in heavy construction projects? Jerry, you are a pathetic joke and a tool.

[Econ 101]

walt wrote:

<quoted text>Don't think so.Cost too high and the pay out was in that case was a few k a month until the 3 children came of age.Talked with my son recently. He was wounded in the firstIraq war and is on permanent disability.He found out that he is eligable for Soc sec also.So he will collect. Could be that the real problem is thatSS does too much.

Mixing apples and oranges- Had he been in the private sector he probably would have had some form of disability insurance to cover expenses and loss of income. That is the point but the costs should not be that high compared to amountr of ss taxes. I have absolutely no problem with the government making payments to wounded vets who are not able to work and support thieir families but that is not the same as the payouts for retirees. Your example is not exactly the scenario I was referring to. There are 2 issues - the gov. uses the ss tax to fund current deficits which is why they wont move to private accounts and 2- who should pay what. It really is nothing more than a tax on wages and forcing people to save for their own retirement would produce a better return.

For thos ewho say it will make the rich pay their fair share- read the latest IRS figures on 2007 tax payments. The richest 1% paid apprx. 40% of all taxes, the HIGHEST SHARE IN HISTORY. So the rich (whatever that means as 250k in chicago is not rich) are already paying more than any time in the past WITH THE TAX CUTS IN PLACE!!