A Prayer from Chris Guynn

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:EIMGj.25868$rC6.25568@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
> >If you read the information you'll know more than you do now. The
> >important
>>point, whether correct or not, is that the U.S. Government is expected to
>>settle the debt - just like it has every other debt - by payment in full.
>>The world financial system would collapse if that were not the expected
>>outcome. Not quite as glitzy as the bullshit is it?
>
> Funny how blind a liberal can be to what's going on around them. Large
> businesses are, pretty much across the board, prohibited from borrowing
> funds from their employees' retirement accounts. It's an inherent conflict
> of interest that has proven, time and time again, to be too much to
> resist. You want to see just how bad it can get, take a good look at what
> happened to the retirement funds of former employees of Easter Airlines,
> Enron or any other large business that got into financial trouble.
>
> The United States Government is the largest business in the world. Why
> should the rules for it be any different?

Wow Lee! You said a blind liberal mouth full there. Summer picked cotton
and the space suit worked. Why should wool be any different?

ben bradlee wrote

>> Funny how blind a liberal can be to what's going on around them. Large
>> businesses are, pretty much across the board, prohibited from borrowing
>> funds from their employees' retirement accounts. It's an inherent
>> conflict of interest that has proven, time and time again, to be too much
>> to resist. You want to see just how bad it can get, take a good look at
>> what happened to the retirement funds of former employees of Easter
>> Airlines, Enron or any other large business that got into financial
>> trouble.
>>
>> The United States Government is the largest business in the world. Why
>> should the rules for it be any different?
>
> Wow Lee! You said a blind liberal mouth full there. Summer picked cotton
> and the space suit worked. Why should wool be any different?

One of us works for the government, you know, is one of those people that
does not pay into and is not dependent on Social Security. The other is an
ignorant dumb ass. Guess which one is which.

There's a reason why postal workers, railroad workers and government
employee (Civil Service Retirement System) have had retirement plans that
exempt them from paying for, and depending on, Social Security. While newer
government employees have a pension plan that does rely on Social Security
for part of the benefit (Federal Employees Retirement System), you should
not be surprised to know that neither Congress, nor the country's most
senior executives are under it. Care to guess why?

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fSNGj.15363$%15.10786@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
> ben bradlee wrote
>
>>> Funny how blind a liberal can be to what's going on around them. Large
>>> businesses are, pretty much across the board, prohibited from borrowing
>>> funds from their employees' retirement accounts. It's an inherent
>>> conflict of interest that has proven, time and time again, to be too
>>> much to resist. You want to see just how bad it can get, take a good
>>> look at what happened to the retirement funds of former employees of
>>> Easter Airlines, Enron or any other large business that got into
>>> financial trouble.
>>>
>>> The United States Government is the largest business in the world. Why
>>> should the rules for it be any different?
>>
>> Wow Lee! You said a blind liberal mouth full there. Summer picked
>> cotton and the space suit worked. Why should wool be any different?
>
> One of us works for the government, you know, is one of those people that
> does not pay into and is not dependent on Social Security. The other is an
> ignorant dumb ass. Guess which one is which.

I'm not going to argue that you're not an ignorant dumbass. In MHK's
absence you have earned the "biggest bullshitter" award; but that only makes
you a dumbass if you believe your own bullshit. Do you?

> There's a reason why postal workers, railroad workers and government
> employee (Civil Service Retirement System) have had retirement plans that
> exempt them from paying for, and depending on, Social Security. While
> newer government employees have a pension plan that does rely on Social
> Security for part of the benefit (Federal Employees Retirement System),
> you should not be surprised to know that neither Congress, nor the
> country's most senior executives are under it. Care to guess why?

This thread was about Chris Guynn praying for a financially conservative
leader. He checked his choices and determined that he didn't see one.
You've ramped that to Enron, Social Security, and borrowing from a pension
plan. I'm sure all very interesting topics in their own right. It's good
that you can digest complicated circumstances such as the failure of Enron
or what Social Security will be in 2050 and recap solutions to those
problems. It seems a bit late for "Lee Bell saves Enron." but it's not too
late for "Lee Bell discovers fix for Social Security woes." Where do you
suppose we can read about your great accomplishments? (Not rec.scuba where
you limit your posting to bullshit.)

On Mar 27, 11:11*am, "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote:

> This thread was about Chris Guynn praying for a financially conservative
> leader. *He checked his choices and determined that he didn't see one.
> You've ramped that to Enron, Social Security, and borrowing from a pension
> plan. *I'm sure all very interesting topics in their own right. *It's good
> that you can digest complicated circumstances such as the failure of Enron
> or what Social Security will be in 2050 and recap solutions to those
> problems. *It seems a bit late for "Lee Bell saves Enron." but it's not too
> late for "Lee Bell discovers fix for Social Security woes." *Where do you
> suppose we can read about your great accomplishments? *(Not rec.scuba where
> you limit your posting to bullshit.)

Shhh. I'm waiting to hear how the fall of Enron was caused by illegal
aliens.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:6fef21dc-cea7-4c04-8b27-de3c512298a8@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 27, 11:11 am, "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote:

> Shhh. I'm waiting to hear how the fall of Enron was caused by illegal
> aliens.

I'm betting it's too few guns. If only... OK. I'll be quiet now.

ben bradlee wrote

> This thread was about Chris Guynn praying for a financially conservative
> leader. He checked his choices and determined that he didn't see one.
> You've ramped that to Enron, Social Security, and borrowing from a
> pension plan.

Sorry, but I didn't take it there. You're the one that suggested that
government borrowing from Social Security should be considered business a
usual I simply responded to your diversion of the topic.

> It seems a bit late for "Lee Bell saves Enron." . . .

I have no desire to save Enron. The company was rotten to the core and got
what it deserved. What I would have liked to have saved was the retirement
benefits of those that worked 30 or more years of their lives to earn them.
Of course, you liberals don't care about things like that. You're more than
willing to spend the earnings of others to make yourselves feel good.

> . . . it's not too late for "Lee Bell discovers fix for Social Security
> woes."

It's long since been discovered. It just hasn't been implemented, possibly
because dumb asses like yourself keep on saying that it's fine for the
government to divert social security money to cover their own deficit
spending.

> Where do you suppose we can read about your great accomplishments?

If you're really clever, you might find some of them in the news services.
It's not like there haven't been any.

Would you care to point out a few of your own?

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:JpTGj.9798$Q52.2185@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> ben bradlee wrote
>
>> This thread was about Chris Guynn praying for a financially conservative
>> leader. He checked his choices and determined that he didn't see one.
>> You've ramped that to Enron, Social Security, and borrowing from a
>> pension plan.
>
> Sorry, but I didn't take it there. You're the one that suggested that
> government borrowing from Social Security should be considered business a
> usual I simply responded to your diversion of the topic.

LOL Check the mirror. Who's face do you see?

>
>> It seems a bit late for "Lee Bell saves Enron." . . .
>
> I have no desire to save Enron. The company was rotten to the core and got
> what it deserved. What I would have liked to have saved was the retirement
> benefits of those that worked 30 or more years of their lives to earn
> them. Of course, you liberals don't care about things like that. You're
> more than willing to spend the earnings of others to make yourselves feel
> good.

LOL And the nonsense just keeps on coming.

>> . . . it's not too late for "Lee Bell discovers fix for Social Security
>> woes."
>
> It's long since been discovered. It just hasn't been implemented, possibly
> because dumb asses like yourself keep on saying that it's fine for the
> government to divert social security money to cover their own deficit
> spending.

That's a possibility all right. Slightly less possible than the Easter
Bunny and the Tooth Fairy parenting Mary Poppins; but, none the less, a
possibility.

And if I were you I'd quit the bitching about deficit spending. After all,
that's the money that pays your salary, insurance, retirement, and travel.
If you really give a damn you should quit work and return the money. Tell
the government to stick the pension until it gets its financial house in the
order you envision best suited to your likes. You can make a difference.
You can do something. Will you? None of you guys that are the problem want
to admit it or do anything about it. You just bitch about everyone else
while your bank account grows fatter with deficit dollars.

>> Where do you suppose we can read about your great accomplishments?
>
> If you're really clever, you might find some of them in the news services.
> It's not like there haven't been any.

There is room for a link you know.

"ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:bp6dnRZs36JSuHfanZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@centurytel.n et...
>
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4f75f$47e9cba6$4c49ae41$24529@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> > news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
> >>
> >> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eM9Gj.36073$J41.1447@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we could actually get someone in office who understood fiscal
> >> > conservatism? Looking at our upcoming options, that's highly
unlikely.
> >>
> >> The only fiscal conservative (that I remember) as marked by actually
> >> spending less government money than what was taken in is Bill Clinton.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
> >>
> >> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
> >>
> >> What's that big blue blip hiding in the bushes?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So the Republican Congress, who passes the budges that the President
can't
> > change....gets no credit?
>
> I'm sorry but I miss your point as it relates to fiscal conservative. Is

And that does not surprise me in the least.

> your question a pun amplified by the word "credit?" You can give Congress
> credit for anything you want to give Congress credit for.
>
>

Uhm,.....no......it' the reality that...Congress....passes the
budget.....and the president has two choices - sign or veto.

Dennis

ben bradlee wrote

> And if I were you I'd quit the bitching about deficit spending. After
> all, that's the money that pays your salary, insurance, retirement, and
> travel. If you really give a damn you should quit work and return the
> money.

If you were me, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it happens, I've
returned money to the government of my country and of others in amounts that
exceed everything you and I combined will ever take from it . . . by many
times. There's a considerable difference between those that work for the
government and those that control it.

> There is room for a link you know.

Sure is. Like I said, if you're really clever, you might find it.

Guess you won't.

Lee

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52732$47ec73af$4c49ae41$3711@KNOLOGY.NET...
> "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> news:bp6dnRZs36JSuHfanZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@centurytel.n et...
>>
>> "Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4f75f$47e9cba6$4c49ae41$24529@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> > "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
>> > news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eM9Gj.36073$J41.1447@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps we could actually get someone in office who understood
>> >> > fiscal
>> >> > conservatism? Looking at our upcoming options, that's highly
> unlikely.
>> >>
>> >> The only fiscal conservative (that I remember) as marked by actually
>> >> spending less government money than what was taken in is Bill Clinton.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
>> >>
>> >> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>> >>
>> >> What's that big blue blip hiding in the bushes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > So the Republican Congress, who passes the budges that the President
> can't
>> > change....gets no credit?
>>
>> I'm sorry but I miss your point as it relates to fiscal conservative. Is
>
> And that does not surprise me in the least.
>
>> your question a pun amplified by the word "credit?" You can give
>> Congress
>> credit for anything you want to give Congress credit for.
>>
>>
>
> Uhm,.....no......it' the reality that...Congress....passes the
> budget.....and the president has two choices - sign or veto.

Yes? The point being? Is there a different choice if you're liberal or
conservative? How does your favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton, manage to
hold the title you give him while at the same time managing budget
surpluses? Different Congress? Different choices?

I don't think I'd go so far as to argue that Bill Clinton is or was a fiscal
conservative, at least by my definition. But, as it turns out, he is the
only one that even remotely resembles a fiscal conservative using the budget
deficit as a measure. Chris's view that there are no fiscal conservatives
appears to ignore the Clinton legacy and the reality that Hillary is
running. Surely, Hillary is not Bill; but I suspect the apple falls not far
from the family tree. It's impossible to gauge the future based on campaign
hype; but a look back on the budget deficit statistics indicates it's not
the Republican party that's bringing forth the fiscal conservatives. The
myth that R.R. was a fiscal conservative was pretty well debunked in one of
the initial links.

The problem with rec.scuba "conservatives" is that "liberal" is a slam
instead of a position on issues.