Question:

>> These republican thugs know their days are numbered…. > You know "Deaf Power", this news group was at one time a nice place to > hang out. I wish you and Liberals Hate America, and the rest of you > rude juveniles would just pack up and leave.

At the death even of the worst, most crooked, most murderous tyrants, a good proportion of the population weeps. People are stupid. They vote against interest constantly. And, as far as "number[ing]" days is concerned, it is the right wing who are murderous, and who would like to cleanse America of liberals and bring in a one-party state with all wealth going to the super-rich aristocracy. They are so afraid of losing  what little they have, that the ignorant and superstitious Redders will give Bush whatever he wants. Impoverish their children, wipe out the economy, see the dollar become worthless, public services reduced to nothing. Ha ha ha.

Response:

Ha Ha – you funny liberal

Response:

Nobody has lost money lately betting against the dollar: Berkshire Hathaway’s 4th-Quarter Profit Jumps 40% >From News Services

Washington Post Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A08 OMAHA — Billionaire Warren Buffett has been betting against the dollar, and the strategy has paid off for his investment and insurance company. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said Saturday its fourth-quarter profit rose 40 percent to $3.34 billion on a $1.63 billion gain from contracts to buy foreign currencies at a future date. Buffett, 74, wrote in his annual letter to shareholders that the nation’s trade policies "will put unremitting pressure on the dollar for many years to come." Photo: http://tinyurl.com/6mqky Caption: Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway made a good bet against the dollar. (Kathy Willens — AP) "In no way does our thinking about currencies rest on doubts about America," Buffett wrote. But he added, "Without policy changes currency markets could even become disorderly and generate spillover effects, both political and financial." The U.S. trade deficit hit $617.7 billion last year, shattering the previous high, set in 2003, by 24 percent. Economists and business leaders differ widely about how great a problem the deficit poses. Buffett’s essay — and his investments in foreign currencies — place him on the side of those concerned about a potential crisis in global financial markets. Buffett, who noted that his company has been trading in foreign currencies since 2002, wrote, "Presently, most foreign investors are sanguine: They may view us as spending junkies, but they know we are rich junkies as well. Our spendthrift behavior won’t however, be tolerated indefinitely." The dollars that Americans pay for imports are invested by foreigners in U.S. securities such as Treasury bonds. Some analysts warn that as those foreign holdings rise in value to trillions of dollars, so do the chances that market players could be stampeded into a panic sell-off that would send the dollar plunging and interest rates soaring. Buffett’s essay is the centerpiece of his company’s annual report to shareholders, and it’s far more widely read than the financial tables and lists of accomplishments in most such corporate reports. Reviewing the performance of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett wrote that he "struck out" for shareholders by failing to find acquisitions last year. "I found very few attractive securities to buy," Buffett wrote. Berkshire’s cash holdings stood at $43.4 billion at year’s end. Buffett’s holdings include Geico and Fruit of the Loom. He is a major investor in The Washington Post Co., where he also serves on the board of directors. While Berkshire’s profit for 2004 fell 10 percent from the previous year to $7.31 billion, its fourth-quarter results were strong. Profit for the quarter ended Dec. 31 climbed to $3.34 billion ($2,172 a share) from $2.39 billion ($1,553) for the same period a year earlier. Berkshire’s book value, or assets minus liabilities, rose 10.5 percent in 2004 after taxes, compared with a 10.9 percent gain in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, before taxes. It’s one of Buffett’s favorite measures of success. On that basis, Buffett wrote in his letter, 2004 was one of only six years since 1965 when Berkshire’s growth in net worth underperformed the S&P. A $10,000 investment in Omaha-based Berkshire the day Buffett took control in 1965 would be valued at about $50 million today. Buffett’s stake in Berkshire Hathaway is worth about $42.5 billion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10568-2005Mar5.html

Response:

The key word is "lately"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nobody has lost money lately betting against the > dollar: > Berkshire Hathaway’s 4th-Quarter Profit Jumps > 40% >From News Services > Washington Post > Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A08 > OMAHA — Billionaire Warren Buffett has been > betting against the > dollar, and the strategy has paid off for his > investment and insurance > company. > Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said Saturday its > fourth-quarter profit rose 40 > percent to $3.34 billion on a $1.63 billion gain > from contracts to buy > foreign currencies at a future date. Buffett, > 74, wrote in his annual > letter to shareholders that the nation’s trade > policies "will put > unremitting pressure on the dollar for many > years to come." > Photo: > http://tinyurl.com/6mqky > Caption: > Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway made a good > bet against the dollar. > (Kathy Willens — AP) > "In no way does our thinking about currencies > rest on doubts about > America," Buffett wrote. But he added, "Without > policy changes currency > markets could even become disorderly and > generate spillover effects, > both political and financial." > The U.S. trade deficit hit $617.7 billion last > year, shattering the > previous high, set in 2003, by 24 percent. > Economists and business > leaders differ widely about how great a problem > the deficit poses. > Buffett’s essay — and his investments in > foreign currencies — place > him on the side of those concerned about a > potential crisis in global > financial markets. > Buffett, who noted that his company has been > trading in foreign > currencies since 2002, wrote, "Presently, most > foreign investors are > sanguine: They may view us as spending junkies, > but they know we are > rich junkies as well. Our spendthrift behavior > won’t however, be > tolerated indefinitely." > The dollars that Americans pay for imports are > invested by foreigners > in U.S. securities such as Treasury bonds. Some > analysts warn that as > those foreign holdings rise in value to > trillions of dollars, so do the > chances that market players could be stampeded > into a panic sell-off > that would send the dollar plunging and interest > rates soaring. > Buffett’s essay is the centerpiece of his > company’s annual report to > shareholders, and it’s far more widely read than > the financial tables > and lists of accomplishments in most such > corporate reports. > Reviewing the performance of Berkshire Hathaway, > Buffett wrote that he > "struck out" for shareholders by failing to find > acquisitions last > year. "I found very few attractive securities to > buy," Buffett wrote. > Berkshire’s cash holdings stood at $43.4 billion > at year’s end. > Buffett’s holdings include Geico and Fruit of > the Loom. He is a major > investor in The Washington Post Co., where he > also serves on the board > of directors. > While Berkshire’s profit for 2004 fell 10 > percent from the previous > year to $7.31 billion, its fourth-quarter > results were strong. Profit > for the quarter ended Dec. 31 climbed to $3.34 > billion ($2,172 a share) > from $2.39 billion ($1,553) for the same period > a year earlier. > Berkshire’s book value, or assets minus > liabilities, rose 10.5 percent > in 2004 after taxes, compared with a 10.9 > percent gain in the Standard > & Poor’s 500-stock index, before taxes. It’s one > of Buffett’s favorite > measures of success. On that basis, Buffett > wrote in his letter, 2004 > was one of only six years since 1965 when > Berkshire’s growth in net > worth underperformed the S&P. > A $10,000 investment in Omaha-based Berkshire > the day Buffett took > control in 1965 would be valued at about $50 > million today. Buffett’s > stake in Berkshire Hathaway is worth about $42.5 > billion. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10568-2005Mar5.html

Response:

> That would require separate reductions in future >benefits, tax increases, borrowing or some combination that Mr. Bush hasn’t >specified.

This is what worries me about add ons.  In the future it will be easy for them to say "your benefits will be reduced by the amount in your add on account"  or some percentage there of. Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address

Response:

>> That would require separate reductions in future >benefits, tax increases, borrowing or some combination that Mr. Bush hasn’t >specified. >This is what worries me about add ons.  In the future it will be easy >for them to say "your benefits will be reduced by the amount in your >add on account"  or some percentage there of.

These republican thugs know their days are numbered….

Response:

> These republican thugs know their days are numbered….

Not so long as they can keep the elections centered on irrelevant things like who is more Christian and whether abortion and gay marriage can and should be banned. Have a look at http://www.godhatesfags.org/ Those are the guys who think they own America. They don’t realize, of course, that America’s intellectual wealth comes from the Blue states; only its mineral resources and brute labor (not much of which is needed anymore) come from the Red.

Response:

Comment: in the beginning, his sycophantic camp followers and committed congregants of Bush’s political religion were beating the drums for social security deform — meaning abolition of Social Security’s welfare and insurance contents and creation of a tax-spared savings regime. Ultimately, it seems, what they wanted was a flat spending tax and abolition of most payroll taxes and taxes on savings and accumulation of wealth — essentially a pulling up of the ladder, protecting the status quo of the haves and creating a barrier to the have-nots — although it takes some economic and sophistication to see it. Here’s what the WSJ is saying today about the scrambling to pacify the general public — for whom Social Security is the greatest invention ever, copied all over the world: ——- The Wall Street Journal March 3, 2005 PAGE ONE More Proposals Surface to Mend Social Security Anxious Lawmakers Seek Variations on Bush Plan; White House Road Show By JACKIE CALMES Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 3, 2005; Page A1 WASHINGTON — Skepticism in Congress about the prospects for enacting President Bush’s Social Security plan is prompting Republicans to intensify their search for alternative approaches to repair the popular retirement program. Although he hasn’t made a detailed proposal, Mr. Bush has said he wants to allow workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private accounts. But skittish Republicans, behind the scenes, are testing out variations on that theme. One, which appeals more to some Democrats and the seniors’ lobby AARP, would be to leave the popular program largely unchanged, and encourage workers to create instead "add-on" private accounts alongside the Social Security system. Treasury Secretary John Snow left open the door to such an approach yesterday, though it would fundamentally alter Mr. Bush’s proposal to partially privatize Social Security itself. "Right now, the more ideas the better," he told reporters. "My preference would be for the sort of proposal that we put forward," he added. "On the other hand…everything is on the table. But we’ve indicated…what we think is the best solution." Meanwhile, with Congress just back from a recess during which many lawmakers heard complaints from constituents about changing Social Security, the White House plans a two-month tour of American cities in which the president, the vice president and the Treasury secretary will promote Mr. Bush’s ideas. The jockeying over retirement accounts — whether "carve-outs," as Mr. Bush’s proposal has come to be known, or "add-ons" — is at the center of the debate over Social Security. But such personal investment accounts wouldn’t address the program’s long-term solvency problems, as the ranks of retirees balloon and proportionately fewer workers are contributing the payroll taxes that support their benefits, as well as those for workers’ survivors and the disabled. That would require separate reductions in future benefits, tax increases, borrowing or some combination that Mr. Bush hasn’t specified. Republican leaders in Congress have been reluctant to embrace Mr. Bush’s concept, but they have remained loyal to the Republican president’s priorities. "In terms of whether it’ll be a week, a month, six months or a year as to when we bring something to the floor, it’s just too early [to say]," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said earlier this week, signaling caution amid united Democratic opposition. Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which handles Social Security, said yesterday that he is eager to stabilize Social Security’s finances with or without private accounts. "Why are we dealing with this? It’s not just for private accounts," he said. "There’s a 75-year insolvency issue." Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah is promoting quietly a proposal to encourage workers to open private accounts into which, after five years, they could choose to divert some payroll taxes as well. To shore up Social Security’s finances, he would alter the formula for computing future retirees’ initial benefits, reducing benefits for all but the lowest-wage workers and structuring reductions so they’re larger for higher-wage workers. In an interview, Sen. Bennett said that White House economic adviser Allan Hubbard and Mr. Snow "have encouraged me to pursue it and go forward." He recently outlined his approach to Senate centrists of both parties. Sen. Bennett acknowledged, though, that Democrats’ opposition to Mr. Bush’s plan is such that few are inclined to compromise. If any plan passes, he said, "The headlines will say ‘Bush Gets Social Security,’ and Democrats don’t want to help make that happen." The one bipartisan effort on the issue in Congress, convened by Sen. Lindsey Graham, hasn’t found common ground yet. The South Carolina Republican said he will revise his bill in a bid to broaden support, calling for carving private accounts out of Social Security with the government guaranteeing a return that would leave low- and moderate-income workers better off than with Social Security benefits alone. He called add-on accounts "a political cop-out." He would, like Mr. Bennett, reduce future Social Security benefits for all, but by greater amounts for those with the largest incomes. Pressed by Republicans in Congress to build public support, the Bush administration is launching an effort to "give real momentum, real priority, and real scale to our efforts," Mr. Snow said. He said he, the president, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials aim to visit 60 cities in 60 days to talk up the president’s plan. "If it isn’t brought up higher in visibility at the grassroots," Sen. Grassley said on CNBC yesterday, "maybe it will be dropped." But, he added, "never sell the president of the United States short, any president, but particularly this one. …He’s had several major victories on things that were considered dead." Even though the government already offers tax breaks for retirement accounts outside Social Security, add-on accounts have long been viewed in Washington as a potential compromise between the president and Democrats whose support he needs to get a bill through the Senate. "It’s the only possible deal in my view," said John Rother, chief AARP lobbyist. The reason: Neither the AARP nor most Democrats will go along with carving private accounts from Social Security, viewing it as a first step toward full privatization. And without their support — and political cover — congressional Republicans don’t think they have the votes in the House and Senate to approve Mr. Bush’s idea. [Whom Do You Trust on Social Security?] Democrats and some Republicans interpreted Mr. Snow’s flexibility as akin to a White House surrender. "They just ran the big white flag up the pole," said Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democrats’ campaign committee. Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said Mr. Snow’s comments "virtually kill Bush’s vision of Social Security reform." Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who has been working to carve private accounts from Social Security for more than a decade, said, "You’re not going to get conservatives to agree to add-ons." But a lot rides on details. Some Republicans have been talking about what amounts to a cosmetic change to the Bush proposal: Declare that all payroll taxes continue to go into Social Security, but offer an income-tax credit to workers who open private accounts. One prominent conservative, Steve Moore, said add-on accounts wouldn’t be objectionable "depending on how they’re structured," suggesting that workers who open them might be offered an income-tax break and agree to accept lower future Social Security benefits. Rep. Clay Shaw, a Florida Republican, has proposed a tax credit for those who open private accounts. Such tax credits, though, would widen the federal budget deficit much as Mr. Bush’s proposal to let workers divert payroll taxes would. Some Democrats, on the other hand, are looking to keep an estate tax on the richest estates, rather than permanently repeal it, as Mr. Bush wants. The revenues would finance tax breaks and, for low-income workers, government subsidies for private savings accounts outside of Social Security. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan continued to back personal accounts as part of a Social Security fix, telling the House Budget Committee yesterday that they would help reduce government spending by depriving the government of revenue and making the budget deficit look larger. "Personal accounts…provide a more credible means of ensuring that the program actually adds to overall saving," he said. "Money allocated to the personal accounts would no longer be available to fund other government activities." Social Security revenues currently exceed benefits by about $150 billion a year. That surplus is lent to the government, and Social Security receives Treasury bonds in return. As baby boomers retire, that surplus will evaporate. A commission led by then-private citizen Greenspan in 1983 created those surpluses by advocating tax increases and benefit cuts. But yesterday Mr. Greenspan suggested those surpluses did more harm than good because, rather than lift national saving, they "have served primarily to facilitate larger deficits in the rest of the budget." Under questioning from Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, Mr. Greenspan expressed misgivings about the government’s role in administering private accounts under the Bush plan. The Fed chief long has opposed investing the Social Security trust funds in the stock market for fear it would give the government too much influence over corporate governance. Mr. Bush’s plan is "getting very close to that," Mr. Spratt said yesterday, because the government would pick investment managers, limit workers’ … read more »

Response: