Steve Lamb wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
The Right Wing *is* class and race warface. That's what drives them, and
that's what gives them political success.
Uh, no. Try again. Some of the worst offenders when it comes to
class and race warfare are staunchly leftist.
Where? Nepal? America no longer has a left. America has a Right and an
Center-Right.
The biggest wealth redistribution in planetary history is occurring
right now as the ultra-wealthy squeeze the middle-class into oblivion by
outsourcing their jobs to China and India while abolishing usury laws so
as to subject Americans to lifelong debt slavery.
Uh-wha-huh? Wealth redistribution means taking from one person and giving
it to another through the coercive power of the state. Outsourcing just means
our system is so whacked it makes good sense to send the jobs elsewhere.
Reagonomics:
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001746.shtml
Bwahahaha... oh man, that's what you've got? That's it? Uh oh, here's
this huge deficit! Again you're leaving out half the equation! Sowell
addresses this nicely. Say you have a yearly income of $20,000 and a debt
load of $2,000, you have a debt of 10% your yearly income. Now, you take out
a loan for $2,000 but in doing so are able to increase your yearly income by
$40,000. Your debt has increased, yes. But as a percentage of your income it
is now 6.7% instead of 10%. Your debt ratio went down and you're also in a
position easier pay off that debt.
Fine, under Reagan-Bush, national debt as a percent of GDP still
ballooned. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Deficit = national debt. Gross National Product (GDP) = the nation's
yearly income. So tell me, have you honestly looked at the GDP for the same
time frame? In fact have you looked at the deficit to GDP ratio under Bush
II? I doubt it. In both cases the ratio shrank.
Bzzt. In both cases the ratio ballooned. Here's Bush II's record. Go
down to the "US Debt vs. GDP" section:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
That means we were better
off because our overall productivity increased immensely and we're better able
to handle the debt load.
Racism:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/barrybar/41431871
"White people find; black people loot."
Racism:
"New Orleans will be a Chocolate City again."
Whoops, sorry, you were saying?
And you say it isn't a Ponzi. Wasn't one of the points of a Ponzi
scan was that they got people to reinvest into the scam.
No, one of the points of a Ponzi scheme is that people are *tricked*
into giving money into it.
*sigh* You really are that dense, aren't you? From the very page you
said I didn't read in the "What is not a Ponzi Scheme (and vice versa)" section:
"A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse a lot faster, simply because of the
demand for exponential increases in participants to sustain it (Ponzi schemes
can survive simply by getting most participants to "reinvest" their money,
with a relatively small number of new participants)."
As for the trick we've covered that. The trick is that people like you
believe it's a valid system! The trick is that you defend it even as experts
completely agree it will FAIL inside approximately 20 years!
Social Security is *not* going to fail in 20 years. It'll start paying
out more than it takes in in 6 years. That itself is *not* a problem,
because, because it has billions in reserves. *Assuming* that our
country has unprecedented low growth, the reserves run out in 20 years.
And even *that* doesn't make Social Security insolvent, because it will
still have enough income to pay 73% of expected benefits.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040009
That's not insolvency, and that's not a collapse of the system. It's a
problem that we see way ahead of time, and, so long as we don't wreck
the system by attempting to privatize it, we can solve it quite easily.
The primary threat to Social Security has never been changing
demographics. It's the Right Wing's successful coning of the public into
thinking that Social Security is going to collapse soon. They are trying
to con Americans into agreeing to scrap the best national retirement
system on the planet--by tricking them into thinking that it won't be
there for them anyway.
Most young
people believe they're better off putting their money into Social Security
than into a savings account or a mutual fund when the exact opposite is true
and has been proven to be true by the returns of each over the past several
decades! That's tricked!
Again, Social Security is not about high returns. It's about providing
*some* retirement income to people. It's about protecting the
nation--not about how many Jaguars you can buy at the end of the day.
The tax increases helped the government pay its bills without dipping
into the bond market, and that helped keep interest rates down.
Increasing taxes *does* help the economy when you use the taxes to
balance the budget.
No, taxes but the breaks on the economy because it removes that revenue
from being reinvested into the economy.
He also got to
come off the economic policies set in motion by Reagan/Bush I.
Clinton's economic legacy is evident in the downturn that started
prior
That's the dot-com bust--not Clinton's fault.
Uh, if we're going to give credit for the upswings we'll blame him for the
same. The dot.com's busted on Clinton's watch, late 99, early 2k. Bush II
took office 2001. So blaming Bush for something that was happening before he
took office is disingenuous at best yet most people blame him for it time and
time again.
Fair is fair. I don't blame Bush for the dot-com bust. I blame him for
allowing his friends at Enron to bankrupt all California power utilties
and eventually the state of California. I blame him for passing a No
Child Left Behind Act that is purposefully so onerous that it encourages
states to give up federal funding. I blame Bush for turning the EPA,
FDA, and BLM over to the corporations those agencies are supposed to
regulate. I blame him for lying America into an illegal war. I blame him
and his friends for rigging two elections. I blame Bush for spending
America into perilous debt. I blame Bush for destroying America's
national image.
No, I'm not going to blame Bush for the dot-com bust :-)
Nearly every one of the perpetrators of terrorists acts against America
were pursued, caught, tried and punished during the Clinton
administration. What Clinton didn't to was to go to war with entire
countries just because of a few nuts.
Yeeeahhh, that's why he refused when Bin Laden was pretty much handed up
on a silver platter, did absolutely nothing in retaliation for the USS Cole,
bombed the wrong target because he was schtooping an intern.
Clinton didn't have to do anything about Social Security. Our nation was
set to grow itself out of the problem. Some portion of that $5 trillion
surplus would've helped.
*sigh* No, it wasn't. Go read the sites I cited.
It looks like I have the facts on my side.
Yeah, sure you do. Keep convincing yourself of that.
I could spend another hour on the Internet debunking your beliefs, but
I'm tired, and I want to get back to talking about the great operating
system I love.
You win--it's a cheap victory--you wore me down, but I forfeit.
Goodmorning.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
