"Oh, right-- so when they post a graphic showing the growth of the Dow Jones industrial average, the rise of the 30-year Treasury Bond, and they include the years in which Clinton took office and the GOP took over Congress, that's too right-wing for you." Man, you must have a comprehension problem. Do you know what the words "editorial staff" mean? I simply do not like the reactionary meanderings of their column writers. That is why I haven't subscribed to the WSJ since 1988. Deal with it. "That is factual data. There is no spin to it. The DJIA and the Treasury Bond's value have risen more quickly since the Republicans took over Congress." And President Clinton has reversed the staggering debt run up during the Reagan/Bush years and balanced the budget. That is another fact. Deal with it. "If you don't like facts, then you're living in a fantasy world-- you might as well deny gravity exists. Tell you what. Try holding a plate over your head, then drop it, and tell me if it falls" Why don't you stick your thumbs up your culo and walk on your elbows. You certainly will look more intelligent than when you post here. Kagy, you are spending way too much time on the internet and at the expresso machine. Do you ever get any work done? Your supervisor would like to talk to you about it! ------------------ Bring It!! [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited August 15, 2000).]
One last time, I am going to point-by-point shoot down your arguments. Then I'm done. And if you insult me or another poster again, you're done here. Translation: You don't agree with me, so you must not be smart enough to understand what I'm saying. I cited the Wall Street Journal as a source to refute Almu's argument. You said that 'I consider the WSJ a good source for stock trends & investing strategies, but that's about it'. Now, it's well established that you think you're smarter than me. Fine, I need a good laugh. But that statement flat-out says that you don't consider the WSJ a good source for anything other than stock trends. Your subsequent qualification-- the editorial board is too conservative-- only serves as an explanation for why you don't like the WSJ's position. It does not then indicate that the graph I posted was acceptable since it didn't come from the WSJ's editorial board. Do you see what I'm saying? You are using the language in an extremely imprecise manner. It is not the reader's fault if they are not able to read your mind and draw all of the unstated implications you want them to. What an intelligent contribution to the discussion. I can see why you think you're smarter than me. I have 963 posts on this board in 18 months. That is 53.5 a month. You have 624 posts, which works out to 34.6 a month-- a 19-post differential, or less than one per day. So, rounding up, I am making one more post per day than you. Wow. As for laying off the caffeine, I am not the one calling people 'dip****' or using multiple exclamation points and question marks to emphasize his statements. Yes, I do. I just completed my last project Saturday, when I flew back from Nashville. This morning, I finished my follow-up project. Until my 8:00 AM meeting tomorrow, I am blissfully untasked. It is a very rare and very welcome respite from the more typical ten-hour days. And my "supervisor" (we white-collar workers prefer the term 'manager') thought this thread was hilarious when I showed it to him. Now, on a serious note: I am not joking about the insults. Cut it out. What we have here is a simple disagreement on politics and on sources. I don't have a problem with that; ask Rocketman95 or Almu. There is plenty of room for disagreement. There is, however, no room for intentional antagonism. I don't deal well with it, so my response is generally just to end the posting privileges of the antagonist. ------------------ "To do nothing" is truly... a sentence fragment.
Let me say, Kagy, I love debating with you on this. Thank God we both love the Rockets or I would have to hunt you down and kill you. No offense. Now, I must break you. Kagy shows a graphic where there is 18 months of growth in the stock market and that equates to a better economy. As an economist, I can tell you that is the most skewed graph in the history of graphs because if you want to use that as fact, then this is not the best economy the country has ever had. The best economy was then between 1917-28 when the stock market rose no less than 27 percent per year. So, we will then forget all the poverty and unemployment that was sky high and lets remember that the rich folks were making millions. Since we are now have having the stock market go up more than 15 percent yearly since 1991, then that shows right there the effect of Reagan and his administration. As a result, we are all enjoying lower crime, less poverty and higher wages for minorities. Reagan is the bomb-diggity. Second, the graph showing the best presidents shows exactly why Republicans are some of the most...never mind. Anyway, who is at the top of that list? Kennedy is. And lets just all forget that he slept with half of Hollywood in the White House. He is just the greatest since he took a bullet for his country, right? And Clinton is such a bad president because he likes and sleeps with women also. So, again, lets keep in mind that Clinton did nothing and just coasted while he kept the interns busy with cigars and personal attention to certain matters. Bad, bad, bad Clinton. Shame, shame, shame. And then, we go and use the WSJ as unbiased info when it comes to elections? Ok, lets look at the facts. Peter Kann, Jerry Bailey, Peter Skinner, Gordon Crovitz, and James Ottaway are all FREAKIN REPUBLICANS who run the WSJ. How do I know? Well, they come to my job twice a year to discuss their advertising budgets, rates and circulation numbers and at the meetings(and I am in there the last 3 years)they have been killing Clinton and they especially kill almost every damn fiscal policy he proposes. I mean why would they want him out of there, right? And on top of that, the managing editor(I can't think of his name right now) went to school with my boss and they both went to a republican rally just 6 weeks ago at the Waldorf Astoria to support Bush's campaign. Clintons 8 years are going to be viewed as useless by Republicans no matter what. None of them are going to sit there and analyze exactly what Clinton did in his 8 years and what the previous administration did. We will just leave it as Reagan increase spending to fortify the military, ended the cold war, and gave America the security it currently enjoys. Doesn't matter about the debt or the unemployment or the high interest rates or the high poverty levels. It was a fair trade off for what we currently enjoy. The Clinton administration inherited all that and coasted for the 8 years. They barely passed the Balance Budget thingy, they let the Republicans do all the work in Congress since they took over, and used his power and influence to get a-head while in office and lied about having affairs. Clinton is a great speaker and can sell you a bridge. But, lets at least give him credit for not ruining all the work the Republicans have done in the last 20 years. Fair? Carry on. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan [This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 15, 2000).]
Those last 2 posts were really nice. BK, I am hurt you did not mention me as someone who has very different views but with whom you can disagree peacefully. I agree wholeheartedly with your points and must say that you did the better job in that particular argument. Your job sounds like my wife's - hectic for a few weeks with a rediculous amount of work, and then it stops for a little while, she surfs the internet, then it picks up again. Anyway... Almu, Hilarious post. Your analysis of the WSJ graphs was accurate. I hope BK responds to your points. Don't get too discouraged. You obviously are a big beleiver in Clinton and always promote him well. However, I would like to point out that this thread started out as a forum to discuss the convention (the speeches, the coverage, etc.) It has nothing to do with anything else. Would someone please respond to my original post, give me some feedback, anything? Any republicans watch and can give their take without the "Clinton bad, Reagan good" rhetoric? Any democrats who have any critiques that are objective? Anyone, anyone? ------------------ "Feminism is a Socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy cpitalism, and become lesbians" -Rev Pat Robertson
Rimmy, I kinda changed my post since you last read it. I decided that I am not a quitter!! As for the convention, again, it really bothers me about these conventions since they are nothing more than glorified pajama parties. They are unnecessary, in my opinion. Also, I am really bothered about all the money being raised by the movie stars and the like for the Democrats. Its obviously political, no doubt. But, like the Republicans, its ruining the system. My girlfriend(who works for Time-Warner)says that George Levine(the chairman)went to Hollywood to raise money for the Democrats so that Gore gets elected. They want Gore in there so that they can have Gore signed off on the Time-Warner/AOL merger that is still pending government approval. Now, is that right? That is really disturbing. Other than that, I loved Clintons speech. Sad to see him go. His wife sucked. Happy to see her go. Chelsea looks like she is having a good time with all this. And I finally saw some color in the audience. Oh, I forgot to respond to Dennis. Hey Dennis, they were not praying for the guy to "bless" him. They were praying for his soul since he is obviously going to hell because he is gay. That is a NO-NO in Republican lore. Didn't you know that? And don't forget the booing. Praying and booing are never heard in church are they? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Brian... It certainly isn't my problem if you do not believe my reason for not subscribing to the WSJ. You may believe whatever you wish. The fact remains: I cancelled my subscription to the WSJ because I took offense to the Republican, right-wing "tone" of their editorials. It also certainly isn't my problem if you want to "read between the lines" of my posts or wax poetic on my use of the english language. Go right ahead. Try not to hurt yourself. I've got better things to do than to try to do the same with your posts. As far as thinking that I'm smarter than you, well, gee, you can believe what you wish, but that's exactly the tone I get from reading your posts. Remarkable coincidence, eh? And, as far as the insults go, I'll gladly quit...as soon as you quit your insults and your "holier/smarter than thou" attitude. Mr. Kagy, are "administrators" the only ones allowed to insult and belittle people on this BBS? If so, please point it out in the rulebook for me. ------------------ Bring It!!
Where do you see me insulting anyone in this thread? Give it up. I can see that having the last word means a lot to you, so I will let you have it. Rimbaud: you hit the nail on the head. The waters are calm for a change around here. That will last until mid-September, when I begin interviewing for a job in another department here. As for the convention, I am the last person who should claim to be objective. The coverage was obsequious and slavering. Hillary's speech was the worst I've seen yet this campaign; I feel 100% certain that I am a better public speaker than she is. I know that, having said all that, some people will probably be pretty quick to dismiss my next statement, but I actually was not that impressed with Bill's speech. Maybe I just have high standards for the guy, having seen him make some great speeches over the past eight years... but last night was nothing special.
Almu, I agree with you on the convention bit, I just enjoy watching it from a sociological and public speaking standpoint. I feel that I am a pretty good judge of the speaking aspects, so I like to discuss them. I also enjoy the debates. Not because they do anything, but because it is fun to see how little they actually say/argue. When someone asks a question, the true talent will then spend 8 minutes "answering" the question. In reality, all they really do is restate the question. Apparently the fundraising from hollywood does not carry influence just in the Democratic party. ABC spent a lot of time showing all of the "stars". As I said before, mostly Streisand. Sad. Glad to see you are not completely demoralized. ------------------ "Feminism is a Socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy cpitalism, and become lesbians" -Rev Pat Robertson
This is just my opinion(again, who really cares, right ) Look, to me, there is nothing basically wrong with the country. As a whole, the country is great. But, I think that there is alot wrong with the government. That is the part I would like addressed. Campaign Financing Reform is the biggest issue nobody is willing to tackle outside of McCain. It annoys me that these corporations can influence legislature so heavily. I am also a hypocrit because I want to have a large corporation one day and if it means that I have to "buy" votes to make me more money, then I am sure that I will do that. If the rules allow it, then I most likely will play by them. Healthcare is another issue that I would love to fix. Again, no detailed idea as how to do this. Social Security really doesn't matter to me because I am not counting on that in my retirement. But, the generations before me didn't have the forewarning to see what my generation does and for that reason, they have to address that issue also. Again, no detailed idea as how to do this. I look at the country as a whole in need of tweaking. Basically, keep the economy going, keep the job growth and home ownership going but fix the damn government rules and regulations that basically make bribery legal. For a country that is so rich, why can't everyone go to the doctor when they need to? Those are the things these pajama parties need to be talking about. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
I am a christian and I do not condone such behavior(the booing). If I was to make a statement about that situation, it would be "what he does in private is between him and God and I have no right or desire to tell him what to do". I am against homosexuality but not to the point that everyone should not be. Quite frankly, it is none of my business what a person's sexual preference is and that should not be a factor for or against someone. I agree that the booing should not have been done(by a choice few) but the praying could have been meant for the man and not against him. I do agree though, the booing was uncalled for. Kings and peasants, we are all God's children. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
Look, jerk - if you can't keep from getting personal, then don't post. You flippantly post later on: "just the facts, m'am". You don't know me, you don't know any facts, you just know I said something you don't agree with. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Almu, don't want you to think I'm picking on you just because I'm replying to so many of your posts, but I've got to take exception to this. You should care about Social Security. You are giving the government hundreds and hundreds of year-2000 dollars this year. When you get them back, do you know roughly how much purchasing power they'll have? Well, let me show you. Here's how I did my figuring: How to measure the value of the shrinking dollar, by Infoplease.com This page "...provides a method for translating dollar values from the past 52 years into 1998 dollars". Using this chart to extrapolate dollar values into the future is a bit imprecise; severe inflation at any point in the next 40 years could change these figures, obviously. We'll go back 40 years (since I retire in 40 years, if for some reason I actually have to work til I'm 65), to 1958. A 1958 dollar is worth $5.64 in inflated 1998 dollars. We'll start with the nice round figure of $100. If, in 1958, you took $100 and stuck it in a sock under your mattress for 40 years, you would still have $100 40 years later. But the $100, adjusted for inflation (100/5.64) would have the purchasing power of only $17.73 in 1958 dollars-- less than one-fifth its original value! THAT is why Social Security is my No. 1 issue. The government takes away my money, gives it to an elderly citizen, and then 39 years from now, will pay me back with dollars that are worth a HELL of a lot less than the ones I gave them! I do a lot of investing on my own; I know that's "risky" but I'm doing pretty well. I guarantee that if I invested $100 today, it would be have more than $17.73 worth of purchasing power in 2040. Doesn't that bother you? I mean, maybe not as much as campaign finance or other issues, but can you honestly say it doesn't matter to you that you're loaning the government thousands of interest-free dollars that will yield no return and will actually devalue significantly before you get em back? ------------------ "To do nothing" is truly... a sentence fragment. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited August 15, 2000).]
BK...how would you propose to fix the Social Security system? Do you believe in privatization? ------------------ Bring It!!
BK, you not picking on me. This is a good debate. Anyways...excellent, excellent points. I re-evaluated my position after that. You are right. I do need to care more. I was just looking at it from my personal standpoint since I don't really count on it to retire. I came to the acceptance that Social Security's 400 bucks a month won't be something I can live off of. Hmm...fixing SS is a challenge. I don't know where to start on the ideas to fix it. Should we invest it in stocks? I don't know. Its ironic. We all want healthcare to improve and we all want medicine to keep advancing to cure diseases. The trade off is people living and working longer during their lives. The previous generation is going to collect social security for a long time and we are going to collect even longer. That will definitely drain the funds, big time. Dennis, I agree with you too. But, maybe your way of thinking should be the way the Republicans or everyone in general should see things. But, they don't. That bothers me because I feel like they think being gay is a disease and not something private between people. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Privatization of SS is one possible answer but it should not be intended as the only answer. I do agree With Bush that some privatization should be implimented so at least to get a higher yield from the investment, which would go along with BK's statement of getting your money's worth. I know alot of senior citizens who want to continue to work past retirement age so maybe raise the retirement age to allow for those that do that and it would ease the burden a bit as well. This is an issue that Democrates AND Republicans need to work on together and not make it a partisan arguement(which both sides are guilty of). For all his faults(we all have some), Bush has shown the ability to reach across the aisle and get things done. I do not hate Gore(unlike Clinton) but I feel he is a little too partisan to get the job done, especially if the Republicans hold onto the house and senate. Sure third party guys can present a good message but if they cannot win, that message will never get out. I try to pick the most winnable guy that is closest to what I believe in. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
I will answer this in detail tonight when I have more time to think about it; I just had the idea of running for Congress and I can't get it out of my head long enough to concentrate. Almu, thank you for your response. Again, I'll deal with that in more detail later, but I want to touch on one aspect that maybe a lot of people wouldn't notice, because I think it illustrates perfectly how dangerous it is to ascribe malicious motives to people with whom you disagree. [Note: this is aimed at the Charley Rangels of the world, not anyone in this thread] Alex, you said that you didn't worry about Social Security because you had no plans to rely on that for your retirement income. I applaud that; I'm in the same boat, with a steadily growing 401k to my name. So, who does plan to rely on their Social Security checks for subsistence? Those groups who traditionally earn less. Minority groups are disproportionately represented below the poverty line. To you and I, it doesn't matter how much SS pays out; we have other means of income. But what about the bottom strata of wage earners? The Democratic plan to save Social Security is simple: keep it solvent. Make sure that it takes in enough money to pay its current beneficiaries-- a glorified Ponzi scheme, to rest on a trendy cliche. Is that enough to live on? Think of the return on your Social Security taxes I have described: you get back a dollar that is worth 20 cents, roughly. Let's draw up an example: a black man who earns $22,000 a year. The goal of the Democratic Party is simply to make sure that this man gets a Social Security check when he's 65-- completely ignoring the fact that unlike Ted Kennedy or anyone else in the top percentile of earners, this man is going to rely completely on his SS check to live on. And that check is going to have the purchasing power of one-fifth of the few dollars he's earning in his prime. Do you see what I'm getting at? In its concern to maintain the status quo, the Democratic Party is basically condemning this man to a life of near (or actual) poverty in retirement. He'll be taken care of, by the government, but he'll be completed dependent on it. But it's the Republicans who are accused of having bad intentions towards minorities-- when their intention of reforming Social Security would put more money in the hands of those that need it most, the poor! Rangel and his ilk would have people believe that the GOP doesn't care at all about minorities-- but on this issue, it's the GOP who stands a better chance of providing a financially comfortable retirement for them. ------------------ "To do nothing" is truly... a sentence fragment.
I also am not planning on depending solely on Social Security for my retirement. 401Ks, and especially Roth 401Ks (pay those "bleeping" taxes upfront), are the way to save for retirement. I feel that social security needs to be privatized, but my personal concerns are: 1) How much privatization is enough? How much is too much? 2) How do you guard against privatization causing even more corruption and misuse of the system than we already see today? These are but two of the questions that need to be answered by any privatization plan that is adopted. Unfortunately, I haven't discovered an answer for them. Have any of you? ------------------ Bring It!!
Brian, on SS, maybe the Republicans have a better plan than the Democrats. IF the Democrats do just want to keep it solvent(I thought they were also for investing)then I don't agree with that. But still, AS A WHOLE, Republicans don't do as much as they should for minorities. I also worry about the possible corruption that can be caused by having someone or a group of people in charge of so much money. Can you imagine the skiming off the top that these guys can take before anyone even realizes it? And I don't want to sound like I have money to tip a bank over. But that example you stated is exactly how I got started 8 years ago when I started investing. I was making that exact same salary and 90 percent went into the market for the first 4 years. I chose to not have SS take care of me and if more people were informed about their choices instead of thinking that SS is the savior, then maybe we won't have such a big issue about it. The problem is that when FDR signed SS into existence, it was only to help out people during the great depression not when rent is 700 dollars a month or a mortgage is 700 dollars a month. Also, even if SS is privatized, I don't think that even if you just lived off SS, you will be able to make it. For example, lets say that you do work until 65. Right now, a man would live to about 80 and a woman to about 83 or so. That is about 15 to 20 years of monies that they will need to survive. So, for arguments sake, let say its 1500 per month/18000 per year. Is that actually enough? Even if you paid off your house, can you actually live off SS? So now, lets take our generation, BK. I am assuming you are around my age of 29. We can pretty much agree that the average lifespan could increase to 100 maybe 105. Some estimates suggest that with all the gene technology, we could live to be 150 easy. But, to make it even, lets say 100. Now, thats another 35 years of living at 18000 per year. Again, will that be enough? I say no freakin way. So, if the Democrats suggest to just keep it solvent and the Republicans want to make it private, I ask you, does it really matter since neither will be enough in the future? Would you consider just getting rid of SS all together and pass a bill that every company that grosses 1 million dollars to provide 401k to their employees and match them dollar for dollar after 5 years? What about bigger companies that gross 20 million matching dollar for dollar after 1 year and companies that gross more provide it immediately? Even if you make just 22,000 dollars per year, investing 5% of it(1100 per year) for 40 years is 44000 dollars. That is without annual fund growth, without adjusting for bonuses or raises and starting employment at age 25. Now add the company match(lets say its a little company) after 5 years, thats another 38500 bringing the retirement account to 82500. Again, not adjusting for any raises or bonuses, same starting age, and add to the fact that the company could grow or go out of business. Still, it looks like SS is an outdated product. Would you take that money already there, invest that for the people who are 40 and older and then stop collecting from everyone else who is younger? That way, you can have the money thats there run out and have the 401k plan become law? Should I just shut up now? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
May I ask what you would like to see them "do for minorities"? There are actually some people who believe that minorities shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else (imagine that!). I hope you don't really think that Democrats actually care about minorities any more than Republicans, just because they're for initiatives like affirmative action. Our good friend Charles Barkley has often said "Democrats like to give people fish, Republicans would rather teach them how to fish". And the fact that there are no black Republicans is not even relevant, nor is the fact that there are more minorities at the Democratic convention, nor is the fact that Clinton has more minorities in his cabinet. I would just like to know what, specifically, it is that Republicans haven't "done for minorities" (and Democrats have), and what it is you want to see them do. ------------------ Metal Sludge
