Ralph wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:07:45 GMT, Dustbin
>  wrote:
>
>
>>greg1199{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gotta love Alan Greenspan. Here he was earlier last week, before the
>>>>congress.
>>>>
>>>>Note his careful choosing of words to describe the Bush Social
>>>
>>>Security plan
>>>
>>>
>>>>and what it means for working and middle class Americans..
>>>>
>>>>I quote Mr. Greenspan directly here..
>>>>
>>>> "These accounts, properly constructed and managed,
will create ...
>>>
>>>a sense
>>>
>>>
>>>>of increased wealth on the part of the middle and lower-income
>>>
>>>classes of
>>>
>>>
>>>>American society, who have had to struggle with very little
capital."
>>>>
>>>>Ahem..
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it nice that you and I only will get a *sense* of increased
>>>
>>>wealth out
>>>
>>>
>>>>of these plans? So much for a real solution that will benefit those
>>>
>>>who need
>>>
>>>
>>>>it most.
>>>>
>>>>Can you say Wall Street Welfare?
>>>>
>>>>Hey, here's a novel idea: How about if these big corporations that
>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>>outsourcing jobs to the third world and creating only lower paying
>>>
>>>new jobs
>>>
>>>
>>>>in their wake, just learn the hard way that not paying the hired help
>>>
>>>enough
>>>
>>>
>>>>to buy your product (and in a corporation's case, that would be it's
>>>>stocks), means that you'll have that many less new investors in the
>>>
>>>future!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh no, can't do that! gotta keep the overall numbers UP!
>>>>
>>>>Let's give them access to Social Security savings, after all, the
>>>>billionaire and millionaire stakeholders are SO needy aren't they?
>>>
>>>
>>>Doesn't matter.  If Bob Worker wants to put his SS in private
>>>investments, who are we to tell him he can't?  Who are we to tell him
>>>that he _must_ put his retirement savings into a phantom trust fund
>>>that pays meager interest?  Who are we to tell him he can only get it
>>>back after a certain age, which of course will be raised over and over
>>>until only the dead are eligible?
>>>
>>>Essentially, Bush is offering people a choice that they should always
>>>have had.  They can invest in this so-called trust fund, or a low-risk
>>>money market with four times the yeild, or even put a portion in
>>>medium-risk investments.  Why were they denied this choice before?  And
>>>why do we force people to save for retirement?  Did I miss some clause
>>>in the Constitution that grants this power to the feds?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My vote is for a national VAT to be added to fund this transition to
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>investment scam, with the hope that it becomes so onerous, that
>>>
>>>America
>>>
>>>
>>>>loses it's pussified, materialistic, spending proclivity and these
>>>>corporates and CEO's (who've seen an average 46% pay increase in
>>>
>>>2004, BTW)
>>>
>>>
>>>>lose their shirts.
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, I really don't care what they make.  The federal government
>>>tells me, "Greg, under pentalty of law, you must loan us money, and
>>>we'll pay you back at two percent interest .... when we're good and
>>>ready.  Suck it up."  (I know it's only money, but I'll
still need it
>>>for food and medicine when I'm old.)  I have a problem with that, and I
>>>call it a loan because that's exactly what it is.  They take it from
>>>me.  They use it.  At some time that they determine, they give it back,
>>>along with an additional amount of interest, which they also determine.
>>> What am I, a frigging bank?  Actually no, because my borrower tells me
>>>what the interest and repayment terms are, and he'll jail me for not
>>>loaning him money.
>>>
>>>If I have to loan my money, I'd rather loan to someone who pays decent
>>>interest, and who pays off the loan before I die.  If a Wall Street Fat
>>>Cat can do that, I don't care what he makes, what he wears, what he
>>>drives, or how tall his Manhattan high rise is.
>>>
>>>This is what capitalism is all about.  You do what you can for
>>>yourself, and you don't worry what anyone else is doing, as long as he
>>>isn't hurting you.  Socialism is when you start worrying what others
>>>make, and for doing what, and whether it's fair.  How well has that
>>>system generally done?
>>>
>>
>>Socialism hasn't failed because socialism hasn't
>>been tried --- YET!
>>
>
> People are inherently corrupt and the same will seek positions of
> power. These positions can only police themselvesf, and that's why it
> has always failed.


That is certainly one aspect of the failure. I
don't think anyone has actually tried to set up
anything substantial. There are still a few
experiments around (left over from the sixties)
but none of them have grown to become the
society of choice.

D.

> If an accurate account were to be made into canada, canadain politics
> and it's social services they'd uncover massive amounts of
> misappropriated funds, misrepresentation, that it's completely
> oppressive and has worrisome genocidal tendencies (although they went
> well beyond worrisome in the late 80's early 90's).

What has the Canadian gov't done that is
genocidal. I don't know about this.

D.

> I use to tote the party line (I had no idea at the time it was an "or
> else"), but people make mistakes and instead of addressing those
> mistakes we snowballed into a radical left turn of fiction (someone
> who did not care saw opportunity and took advantage of it). Some where
> along the line our left went from "recognition of causes and
> contributions of anti-social behaviour" to controllers; brandishing
> their own indoctrination of hate and becoming what they hated as their
> core came to represent smaller and smaller segments of the population.
>
> Utimately,  it's a "rule by gun" and force that begs a mad man to
> build a bigger gun. Time is the great equalizer.
>

That seems to be where things always end up.
Look at amerika now; the biggest gun rules OK.

D.

>
>>>>Fuck big business and it's craven ways. Bring on the Christian
>>>
>>>morality -
>>>
>>>
>>>>esp, the material poverty part.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's easy.  We have only to keep doing what we're doing.
>>>
>
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 12:23:55 AM ---