Originally posted by porsche996:
Bush won a majority, he won the electoral college, and a little over 51% of the voters in this country want him in there.

Originally posted by Mobycat:

Quote:

Originally posted by porsche996:
[b]Bush won a majority, he won the electoral college, and a little over 51% of the voters in this country want him in there.

Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.

But that's neither here nor there.

(I would argue the people who didn't vote at all are the stupid ones)[/b]

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
I think he got you on that one Moby.

Originally posted by Mobycat:

Quote:

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]I think he got you on that one Moby.

true...but what about those that voted but *didn't* vote for President?

(Yeah yeah...that's got to be miniscule...but still...you said we'd argue about anything. )[/b]

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?

Originally posted by WilMac1023:

Quote:

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?

It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.[/b]

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
That is total BS. Typical bullshit propoganda.

Originally posted by Mobycat:
Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.

Originally posted by DocNo:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mobycat:
[b]Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.

I never did understand this parsing of "voter" - either you vote or you don't.

It is correct to say he won 51% of the voters and leave it at that. Period.

Now, this isn't directed at Mobycat but others in the thread:

If you didn't vote, then

If you voted and it didn't go your way, get more people to vote your way next time and quit whining :rolleyes: [/b]

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
You made the claim, you prove it biatch!

The road to prosperity, Wall Street has long maintained, is paved with investments in stocks. President Bush takes a similar position in urging private accounts as part of Social Security.

Who can argue?

Stocks have averaged an annual return of 6 percent above bond yields since the 1920s. No wonder roughly half the households in the United States have invested money in stocks, either directly or through a retirement account.

There's a catch, though. Stock markets don't hit the average each year. Performance runs in streaks: Many strong years can be followed by many lean ones. This repetitive pattern has mystified many market analysts. So young Americans, contemplating Mr. Bush's proposal to replace a portion of Social Security with an investment component, may have to factor in this market cycle, not just their age, when planning a retirement date.

Actually, all investors should perk up their ears if a 2003 paper by three economists is correct. Their forecast: Stocks for the next 15 years or so will be weak - returning maybe only a third of their historical average. The reason for this is even more surprising: demographics.

Originally posted by DocNo:

Now, this isn't directed at Mobycat but others in the thread:

If you didn't vote, then

If you voted and it didn't go your way, get more people to vote your way next time and quit whining :rolleyes:

Originally posted by WilMac1023:

Quote:

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]You made the claim, you prove it biatch!

Try reading this you stupid motherfucker.

Here...I'll even quote for you, if clicking is too much of a chore:

Quote:

The road to prosperity, Wall Street has long maintained, is paved with investments in stocks. President Bush takes a similar position in urging private accounts as part of Social Security.

Who can argue?

Stocks have averaged an annual return of 6 percent above bond yields since the 1920s. No wonder roughly half the households in the United States have invested money in stocks, either directly or through a retirement account.

There's a catch, though. Stock markets don't hit the average each year. Performance runs in streaks: Many strong years can be followed by many lean ones. This repetitive pattern has mystified many market analysts. So young Americans, contemplating Mr. Bush's proposal to replace a portion of Social Security with an investment component, may have to factor in this market cycle, not just their age, when planning a retirement date.

Actually, all investors should perk up their ears if a 2003 paper by three economists is correct. Their forecast: Stocks for the next 15 years or so will be weak - returning maybe only a third of their historical average. The reason for this is even more surprising: demographics.

[/b]

It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.

Originally posted by WilMac1023:

Quote:

Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?

It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.[/b]