Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93701)	1/14/2005 1:18:16 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The problem is not picking from or including all explanations of divine creation in the fullness of doctrine... it is, dispelling the myths of 'theory of evolution' that insists no such event occured. If the anti-creationist lab cloak clerics would come clean on the mythical premise of their extremist push in 'science classes', you wouldn't have a controversy at all. Scientific method and process does not contradict most reasonable people's beliefs and visa versa. If science zealots didn't push the notion there would be no conflict. I don't know a single religious person who claims that scientific method and discovery isn't real (I haven't met everybody yet). There are many lab cloak clerics who do the reverse with absolutely no evidence for the claim ... hypocrisy and bigotry go hand in hand.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93701)	1/14/2005 1:25:48 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Science teachers need to leave space (and do leave space) for children to believe whatever their parents have taught them at home with regard to creation. The theory of evolution doesn't prove or disprove God, or creation, although it may interfere with people's specific beliefs about how we get speciation- but where someone's beliefs impinge on scientific theory supported by evidence, I don't think they can reasonably expect the school system to cater to their religious view. It's strange. You would think the schools were full of science teachers trying to disprove God. What the schools are actually full of is a lot of religious teachers (most people in the US are religious, including teachers) who are trying their best to teach the theory of evolution- and who probably find the theory compatible with their religious beliefs. Of course you DO get those occasional stories of creationists who wound up teaching in the public schools, and who teach in opposition to established curriculum- and that is indeed unfortunate.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93701)	1/14/2005 2:45:12 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

new math, new economics....new lies To: Chispas who wrote (21354) 1/14/2005 1:29:12 PM From: mishedlo Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21386 White House: Social Security accounts don´t boost debt Friday, January 14, 2005 6:02:25 PM White House: Social Security accounts don't boost debt WASHINGTON (AFX) - Allowing workers to divert a chunk of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts would boost government borrowing in coming years but wouldn't increase federal debt, White House budget director Josh Bolten said on Friday Bush's Social Security plans have stirred a fierce debate over the fiscal implications of creating private accounts. Since payroll taxes are used to pay current benefits, allowing workers to divert a portion into private accounts would force the government to find alternative means of funding payments to current Social Security beneficiaries Bush has ruled out raising payroll taxes to fund the transition to private accounts. Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bolten reasserted the administration's stance that the transition should be funded by increased government borrowing While borrowing requirements - estimated at as much as $2 trillion over the next decade - would be reflected in the near-term fiscal picture, it wouldn't represent "an increase in debt," Bolten said [borrowing costs rise but there is no extra debt - Is this new math? - Mish] He argued that the costs would be a wash over the long haul, with a revamped Social Security system wiping out the program's long-term projected shortfall of more than $10 trillion "These are not new costs to the system," Bolten said Critics charge that financial markets could react negatively to the increase in near-term borrowing. That's because Social Security's long-term unfunded commitments represent "implicit debt," which is viewed less warily by financial markets than the "explicit debt" that would be created by the transition borrowing, they argue [Implicit debt vs explicit debt - too funny - mish] While some lawmakers have indicated that debt associated with the transition could be held off budget, Bolten said the borrowing requirements would mean "as a matter of accounting we are required to recognize that cost to the government earlier" than would otherwise be the case [Gee there is a solution - Let's hold it off budget and pretend it does not exist. LOL Mish] Bolten criticized use of the term "transition costs" to describe the borrowing associated with creating the accounts, saying it would be better described as "transition financing." Bolten, however, said any transition borrowing wouldn't be reflected in the fiscal 2006 budget outline the White House is due to send to the printer in coming days because Bush has yet to lay out a detailed proposal [It's not a transition cost it's merely "transition financing". Good god! What's next? Mish] But some details may be coming soon [Looks like I have my answer to that last question I asked already: "Who Knows?" Mish] "I do expect that by the time that budget comes out on Feb. 7 there will be the opportunity to lay out more specifics," Bolten said. [Gee, One might hope so. But with this administration I sure would not count on it. Mish] forexstreet.com