The Cellar Security proposal

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

wow - i see you once again typed a lot but didn't actually answer the question about what specific part of individual SS accounts scare you.

Again Lookout123 spins nonsense. SS monies are taken by the government to solve cash flow problems (such as a war in Iraq). Instead the Trust Fund should be *repaid with interest*. All SS Trust Fund problems solved – no problem. Lookout123 must avoid this solution *repaid with interest* to keep spinning his half truths. I have no problem with a solution to SS. I have a problem getting Lookout123 to even acknowledge simple solutions that are contrary to his neo-con agenda.

What scares me? The propaganda that Lookout123 promotes. For example, a discussion of brokers on (I believe it was Bloomberg News) noted that bond traders would be harmed by the privatizing of SS contributions. But stock brokers would reap substantial rewards. Lookout123 instead lies by saying

a well designed and run Individual account system would make many of our clients less likely to invest additional $$ with us ...

Right. More money in the stock market and yet stock brokers would see less business? Only a student of Pravda and Gerhing (professional liars) would say that. These neo-con lies - just like lies that promoted the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq - scare me. Lookout123 has again posted propaganda - half truths – that private accounts would cause reduced business for stock brokers. Who, pray tell, could ever believe that lie. But then notice who makes that ‘reduced business’ claim.

If Lookout123 were honest, he would demand that government *repay with interest* the monies confiscated from the FAA, Highway, and Social Security Trust Funds. He completely avoids that discussion - as any good political propagandist must. There is no neo-con agenda for correcting this accounting fraud.

An honest Lookout123 would have first demanded that all monies taken from the Trust Funds be *repaid with interest*. Notice every post from Lookout123 completely avoids the concept. Neo-cons don’t want this fraud highlighted. Lookout123, et al have other agendas. What’s good for a neo-con is good for America?

[lookout123]

bruce - you've brought up some good points. i think those are very valid objections to the private accounts.

tw - you continue to be a self impressed asshat. accuse away. you have yet to ever answer a question i've asked of you. as long as you have everything figured out, i'm sure we'll all be ok.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

tw - you continue to be a self impressed asshat. accuse away. you have yet to ever answer a question i've asked of you. as long as you have everything figured out, i'm sure we'll all be ok.

Ever since I reamed Lookout123 a new asshole with a simple question, he is now playing this game of "you don't answer my questions - boo hoo hoo".

Never forget the very first question someone was accused of avoiding. Lookout123 - when will we go after bin Laden. He still will neither answer nor even acknowledge that question.

Latest expression that the neo-con and religious extremist Lookout123 must avoid: *repaid with interest*. As a good propagandist of the neo-cons, he must avoid the concept. *Repaid with interest* is not in the neo-con agenda. Therefore Lookout123 maybe is not permitted to discuss it? Interesting. Who does he work for? Is Lookout123 a paid neo-con spokeperson? Maybe he is told what he can and cannot discuss? *Repaid with interest* is not permitted. "When do we go after bin Laden" - he's not permitted to discuss that either?