Re Titled-- All Political Musings Here

[Cyberian]

Icarus

I don't want to enter this debate, but I have a question if you don't mind.
I'm doing some research on the beginning of the Internet, and would like to know if you could point me to the source for this (book, website, or whatever)
My PM and e-mail are both available if you don't want to answer here.
{Who's gonna be first to tell me this post is Off-Topic?}

FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's.

FACT : Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's.

FALSE.

Gore never said he invented the internet, and what you are referring to was the ARPANET not the internet. Furthermore:

Al Gore said "During my term in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which he did. In March 1986, when workstation computers were still something found mostly in laboratories, Gore sponsored the Supercomputer Network Study Act, Senate Bill 2594, which proposed to link the nation's supercomputers into a single system, when forward-looking companies such as Apple still didn't even have e-mail !

One of Gore's Republican colleagues, Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington, credited him at the time for introducing a bill that would "create {note that word} a high-capacity national research and education network to link up supercomputers and databases around the country."

In testimony to a House committee, Gore said: "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network ... will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses."

 

[Icarus]

I'm sorry to tell you Icarus, but most of those statements are true.

Because YOU want them to be true ? Sorry, they're all propaganda.


The only statement on which Gore may have had a legitimate defense was the case of the girl who stood in class for a day. The article which gore was sent incorrectly stated that the girl stood for the first several days of class. However, in the debates Gore insinuated that the girl has to stand everyday of school.

Gore stated the girl was without a desk for nine days. The original article (which the girl's father passed to Gore) was published in the September 10th edition of Sarasota's Herald-Tribune newspaper, along with a photo of the girl STANDING, without a desk. The article went on to state that she also SAT ON THE FLOOR for eight days (I guess where you attended school 8+1 does not equal 9). Furthermore, the only reason she then had a desk, was due to another kid giving her his desk ! Which means he is now desk-less ! A subsequent article in that newspaper, published on October 5th, states that the newspaper stands by it's original story about overcrowding in the schools and students without desks.


Fiction: Gore stated at the first debate that he had accompanied Federal Emergency Management Agency head James Lee Witt to fires in Texas in 1996.

Fact: Gore recieved a breifing in the airport hanger from an assistant to Witt, on his way to a Texas fundraiser hundreds of miles away from the areas affected by the fires. Gore said he may have "got that wrong" the next morning on Good Morning America.

He merely admitted that it may have been the assistant FEMA director who accompanied him to Houston during the Texas fires, not the director, Witt. Given that Gore and James Lee Witt had jointly attended some 18 different disaster sites together, it's not surprising that they would blur together. Gore's POINT was that he accompanied the FEMA team.


Currently the return rate on a individuals investment from SS is 2% annually.

You're listening too much to Junior's moronic ramblings. As recently as 1998, the Social Security trust funds earned $49.3 billion in interest, representing an effective annual interest rate of 9 percent.

Besides, Junior's "plan" would divert $200 Billion annually into "private accounts", thereby blowing a $1 Trillion hole in the Social Security Trust Fund in just ten years. He doesn't have an explanation as to how he would replace it or how he would make monthly benefit payments without it.

#

 

[Hulk]

I am a DEMOCRAT.

I want to tax the rich hard and give to the poor (like Robinhood).

The rich were all given their money and they should give it back. Never mind the fact that for some reason they are already pay a higher percentage of taxes than those who make less, we need to tax them even more! That will teach them to work hard.

What we need to do is give away more of their money to people who live on welfare for generations and have more babies to get more assistance. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Oh yeah. I also want to put social security in a "lock box" so it can make a nice safe 2% interest!!!

What a f#$king idiot. Democrats prey on the weak with these stupid Jedi mind trick.

I think a Republican is a person too strong for the Jedi mind trick.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Unclemo, next you're going to say that Gore honestly didn't realize that his Chinese dinner wasn't a fundraiser. Sheesh, indeed.

This whole election comes down to (or at least should come down to) economics. Do you think people are stupid and the government should spend their money for them, or that people are at least intelligent enough to take care of their own cash. I've worked too hard for somebody else to spend my money for me.

 

[Unclemo]

First, thanks for your admitance of your loss. Since you never mentioned a name I assume it was made up. It is not like you need to protect the identity of one of the fed governors. And what is the crap of saying you surrender due to my "testimony" of others and good debate skills? I don't really care who you have lunch with. It does not impress me. So, go ahead and continue trying to get a good piece of @$$ by trying to impress women with who you eat out for lunch...


I would rather have people keep their money and do what they like... rather than giving an absurd amount to the government to fund worthless welfare and social security crap. And yes, SS typically does only return around 2%. If it was making this 9% then we would not have to worry about it every drying up. But, SS also does not save for the future and just dishes out what it receives... so, of course it is going to earn a low return. Their are no savings. It is a bunch of crap and a waste of time, money and efforts. (If I had my way I would just get rid of the whole damn thing)

 

[Unclemo]

Yhea, that 9% return on SS is quit possibly the most untrue statement in this whole thread. A normal return for common stocks over the long run is just over 10% (now, no one start a debate over that figure... it depends on a # of variables used to compute the returns and the years used... so let's just say between 10-12%) And we all know that the government is not going to keep expenses low managing all this money. With that added to the rate SS receiving 9% rate of return would be very impressive with little hope for improvement.

 

[Icarus]

Sure thing Red Dawn:

Go HERE, scroll down to the heading "What Happens To The Reserve Funds", and read the last line in that paragraph.

#

 

[wesman2]

Gore stated the girl was without a desk for nine days. The original article (which the girl's father passed to Gore) was published in the September 10th edition of Sarasota's Herald-Tribune newspaper, along with a photo of the girl STANDING, without a desk. The article went on to state that she also SAT ON THE FLOOR for eight days (I guess where you attended school 8+1 does not equal 9). Furthermore, the only reason she then had a desk, was due to another kid giving her his desk ! Which means he is now desk-less ! A subsequent article in that newspaper, published on October 5th, states that the newspaper stands by it's original story about overcrowding in the schools and students without desks.


GORE at debates: "She is the 36th student in that classroom. She sent me a picture of her in the classroom. They can't squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during class"

nine days? Where does he say nine days? Not at the debates. Notice the use of the word 'has' in 'has to stand during class', sounds present tense to me.

From the CNN.com story on the subject:

Understandably, local school officials are upset with the Gore campaign. Wilma Hamilton, the superintendent of schools for Sarasota, said the district has enough desks for its students. Added Dan Kennedy, the school's principal: "It's a matter of not checking facts and verifying them."

Both officials said that Kaylie only had to stand for just one day -- and that Gore should have been careful.


The story goes on to say:

Sarasota High School is already one of the richest in Florida, boasting its own Web site and a television studio that the schools say rivals "any network facility."


Also, I have seen several interviews witht he girls father. And in every one he confirms what the principal and superintendent say--the girl only stood for one day. After that one day her very own desk was provided. There may be budget problems, which the Satasota Herald-Tribune wishes to address, but they should correct factual errors in thier story. (They may have done this, there site is down now, so I could not get a primary source on the articles in question.)

You're listening too much to Junior's moronic ramblings. As recently as 1998, the Social Security trust funds earned $49.3 billion in interest, representing an effective annual interest rate of 9 percent.

Since the returns today are paid by the contributions made today, the rate the current reserve gets is irrelevent. You may not understand that the design of SS is not for it to be a personal retirement fund, but a pay as you go system. Regardless of the rate of the fund, the real value of SS is the return you get based on the dollars you contribute, which is 2%. And if I die by age 65, all the money I sent to the goverment for most of my life is theirs to keep.

Oh, boy the federal goverment owes the SS fund interest. Where do you think that interest is going to come from? Our taxes.

As I stated before, I don't care if you vote for Gore or not. But take the rose colored glasses off. Gore clearly has a problem with tweaking the facts to make a point. If this is something you can live with in a president, then pull the Gore lever. But don't deny the facts just because you want a perfect canidate.

 

[Format C:]

I havn't posted here in a long time and don't intend to start back up now, so I'm not going to get involved in any of your arguments or mistatements of facts. I havn't kept up with all of this election crap from either side, but I can tell you this. I won't vote for more of what we've had for the past several years, nor for anyone thats been along for the ride during that time. I want change. I wouldn't care who was in office now, I just don't want 'em there next year.

Now, the reason that I broke my long silence is to make one single point and one point only. I believe that what I've read concerning the 2% vs 9% debate is an argument about apples and oranges, as is so often the case in politics. I read the report issued from the SSA linked to above and indeed it does state that the reserve funds that were invested earned 9% in 1998. What they earned before that year or since, or what the projected future earnings may be, the report doesn't state and I won't speculate. The one key fact that seems to have been missed by many of the posters to this thread is contained in the report.

<< Any Social Security reserves that are not used for payment of benefits or operational expenses (which are consistently less than 1 percent of revenues) are invested... >>

Read that statement very carefully. What it specifically does NOT say is that all funds paid into Social Security earn a rate of 9% per anum, but rather only those that are not used for payments or administration costs, which I would assume is the vast majority of all funds that are received, otherwise Social Security wouldn't be much of an issue.

I believe that the original point about the rate of return on the portion of everyone's hard earned dollar thats witheld for Social Security &amp; Medicare hasn't been stated effectively. I don't know for a fact, but I would suspect that the original and oft repeated statement, made by whomever, that the typical rate of return on an individuals investment in SS is only 2% would be just as true as the 9% rate of return on the RESERVES.

Interpreting both statements logically leads me to believe that when anyone contributes to SS &amp; Medicare that the sum total of benefits that that person could expect to receive in their lifetime would be an amount equivalent to the total monies paid in plus an effective annual rate of interest of only 2%. Since all of the amount of each regular deduction is NOT invested, but rather only a small portion (that which is not used to pay benefits or operating expenses), then that assumption appears to be completely believable. Whether or not this is indeed the case I have no idea, but I have a strong feeling that it is.

The report issued by the SSA does not state the &quot;typical&quot; nor average rate of return over any length of time therefore one can only assume that the 9% figure quoted would be the highest rate of return experienced in recent years and most likely is indeed NOT typical.

If I'm understanding this issue then what one side is saying is leave it alone, a rate of return of 9% is better than you can earn with most types of long term investments while the other side is saying that only a small portion of the funds paid in are invested and considering the amounts as a whole a rate of return of only 2% is all that can currently be expected and that some private investment could improve upon that figure, which I would tentatively agree with.

I suspect that this issue is typical of all great issues in any political debate. Neither side really understands the totality of what is discussed but rather picks bits and pieces that make good sound bites in order to sway opinions of the typical voter who neither wishes nor cares to understand facts but participates merely for the thrill of the fight.

I think I would tend to agree with Red on at least one issue. If I could vote none of the above, I certainly would. It all boils down to whether you want the same old sorry bastard thats been in the fight for 8 years or a new sorry bastard that'll be fresh meat in the ring.

Turn out the lights when you're done, I've left the building.

 

[acalas]

The isssue isn't particualry hard to understand. On one hand we have &quot;W&quot; a poorly done clone of his daddy who has damn near run texas into the ground as govenor.

On the other we have &quot;AL&quot; who in 8 years of being in the shadow of one of the poorest liars and best representations of why middle aged rednecks make lousy presidents, has managed to remain remarkably clean.


&quot;W&quot; plays the issues as well as his staff can prep him too, but upon examination of his managment skills at the state level one shudders at what he would do as president. Also a individual with vested petrolium interests. Sure this guy is going to lower gas prices, and he's going to make sure the billions paid into the social security system by workers over they years is there when they need it...no really...sure he will.


AL knows the programs put into place by the current administration, has been inside the loop for 8 years, and by most accounts is not proposing any sweeping reforms, the worst he is accused of is skewing the facts, not lying about them, an all to familar campaign tactic I might add.


The choice isn't a particularly hard one...


acalas

 

[Icarus]

Understandably, local school officials are upset with the Gore campaign. Wilma Hamilton, the superintendent of schools for Sarasota, said the district has enough desks for its students. Added Dan Kennedy, the school's principal: &quot;It's a matter of not checking facts and verifying them.&quot;

Except the reporters returned to the school and discovered the officials had LIED. Their subsequent article published on October 5th states they stand by their original story.


Both officials said that Kaylie only had to stand for just one day -- and that Gore should have been careful.

Which is what I said, along with the fact that she had to sit on the floor for 8 days. The fake admonishment to the Vice-President was mere political nonsense.


Also, I have seen several interviews witht he girls father. And in every one he confirms what the principal and superintendent say--the girl only stood for one day.

Again, which is what I said. However, you can read for yourself the father's handwritten note which originally delineated that she sat on the floor for 8 days, and stood for 1 day.


After that one day her very own desk was provided.

After 8 days of sitting on the floor and then one day of standing, another student gave her HIS desk, which then left him without a desk.


There may be budget problems, which the Satasota Herald-Tribune wishes to address, but they should correct factual errors in thier story.

The newspaper stands by it's story. The school officials are attempting to cover-up for the budget cuts instituted by Governor Bush.


You may not understand that the design of SS is not for it to be a personal retirement fund, but a pay as you go system.

DUH.


Regardless of the rate of the fund, the real value of SS is the return you get based on the dollars you contribute, which is 2%.

Even if that were true, what Junior is pitching is gibberish. Remember, he is the one contending that someone could earn a minimum of double what he claims the trust fund is now earning by diverting monies away from the trust fund into private accounts. Therefore, left in the trust fund, the monies earn 9% guaranteed, diverted into private accounts, the monies may earn 4% (double the alleged 2%) or more, with no guarantee. Not to mention that Junior never explains how he proposes to replace the trillions diverted away from the trust fund or how he will make the required monthly benefit payments if he doesn't.

Double DUH !


Oh, boy the federal goverment owes the SS fund interest. Where do you think that interest is going to come from? Our taxes.

And this differs HOW from any other Treasury security the federal government issues, and is held by mutual funds, pension funds, and various other entities both here and around the globe ?


Gore clearly has a problem with tweaking the facts to make a point.

Nonsense. It's merely RightWing spin in place of articulate, feasible policy proposals.


But don't deny the facts...

Facts ?

#

 

[TheNite]

PLEASE ! ! ! No More posts to this thread.

Keep it in &quot;Off topic forum.&quot; They can handle it better there.
This info is all cold now anyway. No deal here.

 

[Icarus]

Read that statement very carefully. What it specifically does NOT say is that all funds paid into Social Security earn a rate of 9% per anum, but rather only those that are not used for payments or administration costs, which I would assume is the vast majority of all funds that are received, otherwise Social Security wouldn't be much of an issue.

Quite. Who is stating otherwise ? The point is that Junior is dealing with the very same limited funds, or more exactly, a percentage of those same funds.


The report issued by the SSA does not state the &quot;typical&quot; nor average rate of return over any length of time therefore one can only assume that the 9% figure quoted would be the highest rate of return experienced in recent years and most likely is indeed NOT typical.

In previous decades, the average has been closer to 7.5% - 8%, so 9% is slightly better, which reflects the prosperous times.

One might want to keep in mind, that if Junior's proposal had been in place 30 some years ago, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. The last time we had a stock market run anywhere close to this was the so-called GO-GO '60s. If a retiree had invested his monies at the peak of that rally in 1968, it would have taken until 1982, just to get the original non-inflation-adjusted money back. Of course the original investments value would be greatly diminished, so it would have required years more to attain what one started with. Even that would not compensate for the fact of being deprived of earning some interest in an alternative investment.

#

 

[wesman2]

Icarus, Please try and catch CNN or Fox News Networks predebate coverage today. Both are airing interviews with Gore himself in which he says he made a couple of factual errors during the first debate, and will be more careful during this debate. The Fox interview addresses the Sarasota issue specificly

As for the SS return, because the money you contribute is not kept in the fund to take advantage of the 9% annual return, the real return you receive is greatly reduced. Of course an individual who is blessed with a long life can recoupe more from SS than a individual retirement fund would provide.

There are several groups who, on average, get better or worse returns from SS. Women do better than men, because of there longer life expectancy for example. One interesting statistic is that african american males have a life expectancy of 64.8 years in the year 200, with the retirement age now at 65, few African-American males will see a substantial return, if any, from their years of forced contributions. (source: African-American leadership network's Project 21 )

All I want is the option to opt out, but the goverment will never give us that option. If they did the SS fund would quickly dry up.

 

[fdiskboy]

Gore has remained clean? That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've heard this week.

&quot;No controlling legal authority&quot;--Does that ring a bell?

Fund-raising from his office in the Old Executive Office Building?

Buddhist temple?

Too much ice tea?

Please, Gore has proven himself to be an opportunist of the worst kind. He will say and do anything (just like Clinton) to get elected.

As for you, Icarus, I truly pity you. I'm not going to argue with you as you have your mind made up and seem to enjoy twisting the facts/truth as much as Gore. Besides, I've been told never to argue with a fool. Because, &quot;he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.&quot;

 

[Unclemo]

Yes, Format C although lengthy has explained the differences between the two numbers of returns.

If SS just invested each person's money as they went and kept it safe it would easily outperform the 2% return we effectively recieve. Of course I would rather just opt out too if given the chance. The problem is the government cannot depend on dumbdumbs to save for their own retirement.

 

[wesman2]

Why hasn't this thread been locked? It's way OT.

 

[fdiskboy]

Can't rely on &quot;dumbdumbs&quot;....

What ever happened to personal responsibility? This IS supposed to be a government BY the people right? So we can trust the &quot;dumbdumbs&quot; to elect the country's leadership but NOT save for retirement? Please explain that logic to me...

This is not a flame. But the logic makes no sense.

 

[wesman2]

So we can trust the &quot;dumbdumbs&quot; to elect the country's leadership but NOT save for retirement?

Have you seen the candidates that made it to the final two?

 

[Unclemo]

Actually, I believe that each voter should have to take a test that shows that know what each candidate stands for.... That would get rid of a lot of dumbdumbs that just vote cause say they they are one party and don't really know what it stands for...

 

[Unclemo]

You really aren't very bright are you? Today's economic success is directly related to policies instituted by Reagan not Clinton/Gore. None of the changes they have made have been around long enough to screw up the economy. Trickle down economics and tax cuts have led to today's prosperity. Furthermore, much of the economy is a result of the technological revolution. Contrary to what Gore might say, he was not responsible for that. I love stupid liberals. Please, name one of Clinton's new economic policies that you think helped us out.
Bump bump

 

[hychka]

&quot;Normalized trade&quot; with China.

unclemo, you're so pathetic I had to to answer.

I hear the &quot;mods&quot; wanted to rename this thread &quot;unclemo's rantings.&quot;

 

[fdiskboy]

Normalized trade with China? Leading to our huge trade deficit with them? That means more money is LEAVING the country for China than is COMING to the USA from them.

Try again.

 

[Unclemo]

That only happened due to the dimize of communism started by Reagan!

 

[hychka]

Reagan started communism??

I never heard that before!!

Does &quot;Mommy&quot; know??!!