HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:22 am**

Irishmans Shanty wrote:Politics Made Simple

Socialism - you have two cows, give one to your neighbor
Communism - you have two cows, give both to the government, the Government gives you milk.
Capitalism - you sell one cow and get a bull.
Fascism - you have two cows, give the milk to the government, the government sells the milk back to you
Nazism - The government shoots you and takes the cows.
Anarchism - keep your two cows, steal someone elses, shoot the government when they come to do something about it.
Liberalism - give away one cow, get the government to give you a new cow. Now give them both away.

People with a few more miles on their odometer keep telling me that the political arena is more polarized than ever. I can't dispute that because it seemed to me that when the big chair in Washington is up for grabs the two parties used to squeeze to the middle and tried to appeal to the masses, I don't see that happening next November.

I have no cows!
So what am I?
Just one of those liberal conservatives, or maybe its conservative liberals????

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:25 am**

elliott70 wrote:
I have no cows!
So what am I?

A poor farmer??

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:28 am**

packerboy wrote:Go easy on old Govs.

Get rid of the Congress, make the Rebublican Party the National Party , elect Bush President for Life, and lets keep this country moving ahead.

Yea PB, and move ahead with the greatest deficit spending EVER!

Maybe consevative republicans talk the talk about no taxes, but they sure know how to spend our money fruitlessly.
No fiscal responisibility. Spend what you don't have, and make sure the Rich get it all.

Is that what you call moving forward?

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:29 am**

As far as Hilary's idea, it does not address the retirement side of social security. With one system tetering on the brink, why introduce a second system?

She, someone, needs to advocate to put money into the SS system to make it viable for the future, put all monies into it into the future and then not allow the monies to be touched.

The money can come from an estate tax on those estates in excess of $7 million, and a 10% excise tax on all elected politicians (managements such as mayor, council, state rep, federal reps & senators, president - not working elected like sheriff and county auditor). And maybe pro athletes and a fee against owners (if you don't win the fee goes higher).

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:29 am**

elliott70 wrote:
Irishmans Shanty wrote:Politics Made Simple

Socialism - you have two cows, give one to your neighbor
Communism - you have two cows, give both to the government, the Government gives you milk.
Capitalism - you sell one cow and get a bull.
Fascism - you have two cows, give the milk to the government, the government sells the milk back to you
Nazism - The government shoots you and takes the cows.
Anarchism - keep your two cows, steal someone elses, shoot the government when they come to do something about it.
Liberalism - give away one cow, get the government to give you a new cow. Now give them both away.

People with a few more miles on their odometer keep telling me that the political arena is more polarized than ever. I can't dispute that because it seemed to me that when the big chair in Washington is up for grabs the two parties used to squeeze to the middle and tried to appeal to the masses, I don't see that happening next November.

I have no cows!
So what am I?
Just one of those liberal conservatives, or maybe its conservative liberals????

I'm not exactly sure we can all agree what a cow is.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:31 am**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
I have no cows!
So what am I?
A poor farmer??

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:32 am**

Govs93 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
Irishmans Shanty wrote:Politics Made Simple

Socialism - you have two cows, give one to your neighbor
Communism - you have two cows, give both to the government, the Government gives you milk.
Capitalism - you sell one cow and get a bull.
Fascism - you have two cows, give the milk to the government, the government sells the milk back to you
Nazism - The government shoots you and takes the cows.
Anarchism - keep your two cows, steal someone elses, shoot the government when they come to do something about it.
Liberalism - give away one cow, get the government to give you a new cow. Now give them both away.

People with a few more miles on their odometer keep telling me that the political arena is more polarized than ever. I can't dispute that because it seemed to me that when the big chair in Washington is up for grabs the two parties used to squeeze to the middle and tried to appeal to the masses, I don't see that happening next November.

I have no cows!
So what am I?
Just one of those liberal conservatives, or maybe its conservative liberals????
I'm not exactly sure we can all agree what a cow is.

You should have moved farther west, say to Buffalo, seems to be a lot of bull out that way. Right HOFAMER.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:44 am**

elliott70 wrote:As far as Hilary's idea, it does not address the retirement side of social security. With one system tetering on the brink, why introduce a second system?

Agree

elliott70 wrote: not allow the monies to be touched.

Agree, this should have been done all along

elliott70 wrote: The money can come from an estate tax on those estates in excess of $7 million, and a 10% excise tax on all elected politicians (managements such as mayor, council, state rep, federal reps & senators, president - not working elected like sheriff and county auditor). And maybe pro athletes and a fee against owners (if you don't win the fee goes higher).

Disagree for many reasons, most of all it's not my job to finance someone elses retirement, and not theirs to finance mine!Or was that last part sarcasm?

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:01 am**

Hey Neut, I am sure the list of corrupt poilticians on both sides of the aisle is long.

But truth be told Id rather have a little Iran / Contra, Whitewater, Watergate, Restroomgate type stuff goin on than Amy Bleepin Klobuchar.

"Hey I think I will be a Senator and the when I dont like my cell phone contract, Ill introduce some legislation against it".

What a joke.

We should have never given them the vote.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:30 am**

Hey Neut, I am sure the list of corrupt poilticians on both sides of the aisle is long.

But truth be told Id rather have a little Iran / Contra, Whitewater, Watergate, Restroomgate type stuff goin on than Amy Bleepin Klobuchar.

"Hey I think I will be a Senator and the when I dont like my cell phone contract, Ill introduce some legislation against it".

What a joke.

We should have never given them the vote.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:00 am**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
elliott70 wrote:As far as Hilary's idea, it does not address the retirement side of social security. With one system tetering on the brink, why introduce a second system?

Agree
elliott70 wrote: not allow the monies to be touched.

Agree, this should have been done all along

elliott70 wrote:The money can come from an estate tax on those estates in excess of $7 million, and a 10% excise tax on all elected politicians (managements such as mayor, council, state rep, federal reps & senators, president - not working elected like sheriff and county auditor). And maybe pro athletes and a fee against owners (if you don't win the fee goes higher).
Disagree for many reasons, most of all it's not my job to finance someone elses retirement, and not theirs to finance mine!Or was that last part sarcasm?

You have a $7million estate????
We need to talk.

Your a professional politician? We do not need to talk.

Your a pro athlete? I hope its the Wild or Twins.

You own a pro team? Can I get tickets?

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:02 am**

packerboy wrote:Hey Neut, I am sure the list of corrupt poilticians on both sides of the aisle is long.

But truth be told Id rather have a little Iran / Contra, Whitewater, Watergate, Restroomgate type stuff goin on than Amy Bleepin Klobuchar.

"Hey I think I will be a Senator and the when I dont like my cell phone contract, Ill introduce some legislation against it".

What a joke.

We should have never given them the vote.

Such a bold statement it needed to be said twice!

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:12 am**

packerboy wrote:But truth be told Id rather have a little Iran / Contra, Whitewater, Watergate, Restroomgate type stuff goin on than Amy Bleepin Klobuchar.

"Hey I think I will be a Senator and the when I dont like my cell phone contract, Ill introduce some legislation against it".

Sweet! We have a celebrity in our ranks! Gentlemen, meet Ann Coulter!

I'm going to assume that you're not Amy's biggest fan, and that your statement was said tongue-in-cheek for effect, but it further proves my "sheep" statement from earlier. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the actions are, the "right" will always follow the leader.

Listen to and act on constituents' concerns? "We're already elected, we don't need them anymore. Not necessary."
Consumer protection? "We're elitist, it doesn't effect us. Besides, we'd rock the corporate boat."
Arming the Middle East to fund rebel armies? "Do we ship FedEx overnight or standard?"

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:16 am**

Believe it or not this is a form of liberarian paternalism (popularized by a famous research paper conducted by the chicago school of economics). This is a great example of how politics makes for strange bedfellows. As a card carrying libertarian I believe this plan makes sense from a theoretical standpoint. This policy could help bring our enormous balance of payments deficit into check with time. It is no secret that Americans need to save more. We can blame the current administration all we want for the huge deficit but the fact of the matter is the majority of it is due to our individual choices i.e. too much consumption and too little saving. If Hillary gets elected the plan would get heavily scrutinized and probably never make it into law. I do appreciate the her attempt to really tackle a problem that is very serious.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:22 am**

elliott70 wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote:
elliott70 wrote:As far as Hilary's idea, it does not address the retirement side of social security. With one system tetering on the brink, why introduce a second system?

Agree
elliott70 wrote: not allow the monies to be touched.

Agree, this should have been done all along

elliott70 wrote:The money can come from an estate tax on those estates in excess of $7 million, and a 10% excise tax on all elected politicians (managements such as mayor, council, state rep, federal reps & senators, president - not working elected like sheriff and county auditor). And maybe pro athletes and a fee against owners (if you don't win the fee goes higher).
Disagree for many reasons, most of all it's not my job to finance someone elses retirement, and not theirs to finance mine!Or was that last part sarcasm?

You have a $7million estate???? No, Why does that matter?
We need to talk.

Your a professional politician? We do not need to talk. No! we can continue the discussion
Your a pro athlete? I hope its the Wild or Twins. No nuff said on that!

You own a pro team? Can I get tickets?Go back to answer #1 I think ya need at least 7mil.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:45 am**

Wild4hockey wrote:Believe it or not this is a form of liberarian paternalism (popularized by a famous research paper conducted by the chicago school of economics). This is a great example of how politics makes for strange bedfellows. As a card carrying libertarian I believe this plan makes sense from a theoretical standpoint. This policy could help bring our enormous balance of payments deficit into check with time. It is no secret that Americans need to save more. We can blame the current administration all we want for the huge deficit but the fact of the matter is the majority of it is due to our individual choices i.e. too much consumption and too little saving. If Hillary gets elected the plan would get heavily scrutinized and probably never make it into law. I do appreciate the her attempt to really tackle a problem that is very serious.

So some people can't control themselves and spend every dime...so the government should step in and say since you can't save wisely on your own we will do it for you and charge everyone for it... Not!

The beauty of this country is you get to make choices...some people make wise choices and work hard and end up with 7mil estates...Good for them.
Some are lazy make poor choices and have little to nothing...tough hop!

We already have welfare to help those that are in despair and countless volunteer, and charitable organizations, that will help them, which are abused to no end.
But to say that the Feds should start another program, regardless of which party does it, to fund Americans retirement is just plain stupid! and they can't be accountable as a trustee to manage the pool....money and Government usually leads to corruption....IMO this is political posturing for votes...another dipping the toe in the water to see if she should dive in.
The fact that most of us are now being pushed to 70yrs before we are entitled to SS benefits we've earned and which will most likely be reduced because of a lack of funding, this should be clue enough to oust her just for being so ignorant.

If the government never ever touched the SS pool what would retirement age be today...??

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:42 am**

Wild4 wrote:

I do appreciate the her attempt to really tackle a problem that is very serious.

You cant be serious. She isnt tackling anything except Bill on his way to his next affair.

She is pandering for votes.

You Liberals slay me. "Yah, lets take from those guys and give to them guys"

So long as the liberal isnt one of "those guys" , he goes along like a sheep to slaughter.

Hey, Ive got an idea , lets take some money form the guy maikng 50K and give it to the guy making 30K..after all the guy making 50k is rich compared to the 30K guy. Why not do that?

Because its flippin idiotic thats why and it wouldnt get you elected. But it makes as much sense as this other crap.

Tackling a problem my axe. Bill, keep yout pants on. Now thats tackling a problem.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:04 pm**

Govs93 wrote: I'm going to assume that you're not Amy's biggest fan, and that your statement was said tongue-in-cheek for effect, but it further proves my "sheep" statement from earlier. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the actions are, the "right" will always follow the leader.

The MPR listening Liberals are no better. Same sheep, different flock. packerboy said it best when he posed the question "How bad are the Democrats when they can't beat George Flippin Bush"? I'm not sure on the flippin part, might have been boofin, but you get the idea.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:17 pm**

Neutron 14 wrote:
Govs93 wrote: I'm going to assume that you're not Amy's biggest fan, and that your statement was said tongue-in-cheek for effect, but it further proves my "sheep" statement from earlier. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the actions are, the "right" will always follow the leader.
packerboy said it best when he posed the question "How bad are the Democrats when they can't beat George Flippin Bush"?

They did in 2000!

Even I hate that argument... although he was outvoted.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:37 pm**

You Liberals slay me. "Yah, lets take from those guys and give to them guys"

Refer back to my post, and read it carefully this time. OK, now that you have done that look up what a libertarian stands for. I think you will see that it is further right than you are my friend. Hence the reason why I made the claim of politics making for strange bed fellows (no pun intended on the Clintons). The term libertarian paternalism is hard to come to grips with because it is sort of an oxy-moron, libertarians only want small non-intrusive gov't. The principle isn't based on taking from one group and giving to another. That is a liberal thought. What I am merely suggesting is that the theoretical argument behind the plan is sound. That is we need to do something to increase saving in the country. This however shouldn't be done by the gov't, what should take place is the company you work for should automatically enroll you in a 401 (K). Call it a nudge in the right direction. The company my wife works for already does this, if you don't enroll on your own within the first 60 days of employment they enroll you and withold 6% of earnings and match it as well. I am sure you can see the logic in that.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:44 pm**

[quote="packerboy"]

Hey, Ive got an idea , lets take some money form the guy maikng 50K and give it to the guy making 30K..after all the guy making 50k is rich compared to the 30K guy. Why not do that?

I think your'e onto something here PB. Makes total sense that we all are entitled to the same no matter what you have or haven't done. Who cares if you took the time to get an education and work 80 hour weeks? You make more than me because I elect not to work or better myself...give me some of yours

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:50 pm**

Wild4hockey wrote: The company my wife works for already does this, if you don't enroll on your own within the first 60 days of employment they enroll you and withold 6% of earnings and match it as well. I am sure you can see the logic in that.

Are you kidding me??

At what point can an employer force you into a 401K??
Of course most probably know that the owners have to go by the 1/3 - 2/3 rule.
The top 1/3 earners can't contibute more to the plan then the bottom 2/3 this prevents it from being a tax shelter, however if your employees are forced to participate this automatically brings up the bottom 2/3.
I would question the legality of that?
Don't get me wrong 401k is a great plan....but again forced?? what if you say no? do they fire you??

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:05 pm**

They do give you the opportunity to opt out, I was just pointing out that they automatically enroll you if you fail to do so on your own. This is the "nudge" I was refering to. I see nothing wrong with it. Really everyone should participate, because it is the most tax effective way to build wealth.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:26 pm**

Wild4hockey wrote:They do give you the opportunity to opt out, I was just pointing out that they automatically enroll you if you fail to do so on your own. This is the "nudge" I was refering to. I see nothing wrong with it. Really everyone should participate, because it is the most tax effective way to build wealth.

Thanks for clarifying that.......

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:26 pm**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
Wild4hockey wrote: The company my wife works for already does this, if you don't enroll on your own within the first 60 days of employment they enroll you and withold 6% of earnings and match it as well. I am sure you can see the logic in that.
Are you kidding me??
At what point can an employer force you into a 401K??
Of course most probably know that the owners have to go by the 1/3 - 2/3 rule.
The top 1/3 earners can't contibute more to the plan then the bottom 2/3 this prevents it from being a tax shelter, however if your employees are forced to participate this automatically brings up the bottom 2/3.
I would question the legality of that?
Don't get me wrong 401k is a great plan....but again forced?? what if you say no? do they fire you??

This is legal.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Clinton proposes 401(k)s, matching funds ??