<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Harold Ford: Break on through to the other side!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michele</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66494</link>
		<dc:creator>Michele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66494</guid>
		<description>What a rook---high-income earners get no s.s. after paying through the nose for it all these years??? NO WAY. What a gigantic rip-off! S.s. taxes are HUGE. We ought to know as self-employeds! We pay the full 15%, as you do, LaShawn. If that&#039;s the thinking, then we BETTER have private accounts, because the whole s.s. then really IS just another welfare program that we all have to pay for and not get anything from, to boot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a rook&#8212;high-income earners get no s.s. after paying through the nose for it all these years??? NO WAY. What a gigantic rip-off! S.s. taxes are HUGE. We ought to know as self-employeds! We pay the full 15%, as you do, LaShawn. If that&#8217;s the thinking, then we BETTER have private accounts, because the whole s.s. then really IS just another welfare program that we all have to pay for and not get anything from, to boot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lukeNC</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66485</link>
		<dc:creator>lukeNC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66485</guid>
		<description>Ford just to say the right things to get elected.

Just like every politician in history, conservative, liberal, etc.  all the same....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ford just to say the right things to get elected.</p>
<p>Just like every politician in history, conservative, liberal, etc.  all the same&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VinceTN</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66483</link>
		<dc:creator>VinceTN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66483</guid>
		<description>The Ford family is reviled in Tennessee.  Some of the most debased and godless ... in politics are in that man&#039;s family.  He&#039;s taking all the &quot;right&quot; positions concerning abortion, spending, and gay marriage but we know who and what he really stands for.  Besides, even a conservative Dem gives Leftist Reid that much more relevance in the senate and times are too difficult to play around with having Dems in power in any branch of government right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ford family is reviled in Tennessee.  Some of the most debased and godless &#8230; in politics are in that man&#8217;s family.  He&#8217;s taking all the &#8220;right&#8221; positions concerning abortion, spending, and gay marriage but we know who and what he really stands for.  Besides, even a conservative Dem gives Leftist Reid that much more relevance in the senate and times are too difficult to play around with having Dems in power in any branch of government right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roshaunda</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66478</link>
		<dc:creator>Roshaunda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66478</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t believe the hype! Harold Ford Jr. is only saying what he needs to in order to get elected to the Senate.

The Ford family is reviled by most Tennesseans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t believe the hype! Harold Ford Jr. is only saying what he needs to in order to get elected to the Senate.</p>
<p>The Ford family is reviled by most Tennesseans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: On the BorderLine </title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66443</link>
		<dc:creator>On the BorderLine </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66443</guid>
		<description>Harold Ford: Break on through to the other side! at La Shawn Barber&#039;s Corner     </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harold Ford: Break on through to the other side! at La Shawn Barber&#8217;s Corner</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Moore</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66431</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66431</guid>
		<description>Would pay more attention if more Republicans would lean to the right.  Actions speak louder than words.  Politicians who run for office as one thing and then hedge their bets to insure re election are a (only one) root of the problem.

As for cutting bloated social spending, merely asking for accountability would be enough. Does the program produce the results it claims?  Keep it.  Does the program fail to produce results that can be measured? Cut it.

To put it in terms easily understood, shut down schools that harm children.  Give raises (and praise) to those who effectively teach. Cut the ratio of administrators to teachers.  Make part of the pay raise a bonus several years later to those who helped kids to help themselves.  Don&#039;t know how to reach many of the parents, most crying need of all.

TANSTAAFL.

There Ain&#039;t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Think this came from Larry Niven. Selling of the concept of a free lunch is an example of GIGO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would pay more attention if more Republicans would lean to the right.  Actions speak louder than words.  Politicians who run for office as one thing and then hedge their bets to insure re election are a (only one) root of the problem.</p>
<p>As for cutting bloated social spending, merely asking for accountability would be enough. Does the program produce the results it claims?  Keep it.  Does the program fail to produce results that can be measured? Cut it.</p>
<p>To put it in terms easily understood, shut down schools that harm children.  Give raises (and praise) to those who effectively teach. Cut the ratio of administrators to teachers.  Make part of the pay raise a bonus several years later to those who helped kids to help themselves.  Don&#8217;t know how to reach many of the parents, most crying need of all.</p>
<p>TANSTAAFL.</p>
<p>There Ain&#8217;t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.</p>
<p>Think this came from Larry Niven. Selling of the concept of a free lunch is an example of GIGO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RedBeard</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66425</link>
		<dc:creator>RedBeard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66425</guid>
		<description>Whenever someone suggests that government can do a better job of managing retirement savings than the individual, I have to laugh.  Our government?  Managing money wisely?  That&#039;s really amusing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whenever someone suggests that government can do a better job of managing retirement savings than the individual, I have to laugh.  Our government?  Managing money wisely?  That&#8217;s really amusing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dianne</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66417</link>
		<dc:creator>dianne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66417</guid>
		<description>The retirement age was raised just in time for the babyboomers to retire.  It will be raised again in time for our (boomer&#039;s) children to retire. What Ford is saying is logical but is hardly a radical departure from past practices and doesn&#039;t, IMHO, indicate he is leaning to the right.  What I do like about his statement is that it is a foregone conclusion, so 40 and under people should be notified of the inevitable change as soon as possible.  I&#039;d like him even more if he could engineer a bi-partisan &quot;gang&quot; to propose it as well as really work on other changes necessary to save the SS system for the next generation.  If he is really leaning to the right, he would acknowledge that 401K&#039;s (or the equivalent) are the answer to a secure retirement and that Bush was on the right track with his proposal, but he failed to get the train started and he (Bush) failed to convince even the AARP that he was on the right track. I am living proof that investing in a 401K (or equivalent) will supplement my income enough so that I can have a comfortable retirement. 

And, just as food for thought, I remember being in my 30&#039;s (nearly 30 years ago)and having bitter arguements with my now dear departed dad over the future solvency of the SS system for my own retirement.  I resented paying into it.  I was convinced it would be bankrupt by the time I reached 65 and thus I never counted on it for my retirement.  When 401K&#039;s came along, I jumped in with both feet.  I only wish they would have been available when I was 30.  I wouldn&#039;t be comfortable today; I&#039;d be rich.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The retirement age was raised just in time for the babyboomers to retire.  It will be raised again in time for our (boomer&#8217;s) children to retire. What Ford is saying is logical but is hardly a radical departure from past practices and doesn&#8217;t, IMHO, indicate he is leaning to the right.  What I do like about his statement is that it is a foregone conclusion, so 40 and under people should be notified of the inevitable change as soon as possible.  I&#8217;d like him even more if he could engineer a bi-partisan &#8220;gang&#8221; to propose it as well as really work on other changes necessary to save the SS system for the next generation.  If he is really leaning to the right, he would acknowledge that 401K&#8217;s (or the equivalent) are the answer to a secure retirement and that Bush was on the right track with his proposal, but he failed to get the train started and he (Bush) failed to convince even the AARP that he was on the right track. I am living proof that investing in a 401K (or equivalent) will supplement my income enough so that I can have a comfortable retirement. </p>
<p>And, just as food for thought, I remember being in my 30&#8242;s (nearly 30 years ago)and having bitter arguements with my now dear departed dad over the future solvency of the SS system for my own retirement.  I resented paying into it.  I was convinced it would be bankrupt by the time I reached 65 and thus I never counted on it for my retirement.  When 401K&#8217;s came along, I jumped in with both feet.  I only wish they would have been available when I was 30.  I wouldn&#8217;t be comfortable today; I&#8217;d be rich.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heliotrope</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66413</link>
		<dc:creator>Heliotrope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66413</guid>
		<description>ech, 

I often hear that the &quot;Bush plan&quot; to privatize social security is full of flawed logic, numbers that won&#039;t work and other charges.

The only problem is that there is no &quot;Bush plan&quot; per se. He asked that smart people get together and come up with privatization ideas. And he suggested a few guidelines.

Instead of creative thinkers proposing ideas, all manner of charges were leveled at him which included trying to destroy social security.

To disavow the possibility of privatizing retirement funds is to deny the efficacy of all pension plans, the reality of mutual funds, bond funds and the ready facts of state retirement funds, and the record of the country of Chile and its privatized system.

There are many examples of flawed privatization plans and more than a few that have failed entirely. But the broken social security system we currently have must be addressed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ech, </p>
<p>I often hear that the &#8220;Bush plan&#8221; to privatize social security is full of flawed logic, numbers that won&#8217;t work and other charges.</p>
<p>The only problem is that there is no &#8220;Bush plan&#8221; per se. He asked that smart people get together and come up with privatization ideas. And he suggested a few guidelines.</p>
<p>Instead of creative thinkers proposing ideas, all manner of charges were leveled at him which included trying to destroy social security.</p>
<p>To disavow the possibility of privatizing retirement funds is to deny the efficacy of all pension plans, the reality of mutual funds, bond funds and the ready facts of state retirement funds, and the record of the country of Chile and its privatized system.</p>
<p>There are many examples of flawed privatization plans and more than a few that have failed entirely. But the broken social security system we currently have must be addressed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q. Hendrix</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66400</link>
		<dc:creator>Q. Hendrix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66400</guid>
		<description>Today&#039;s partisan politics is the problem. It&#039;s time for Congressional candidates to run on their own platform, instead of party loyalty. Partisanship politics makes it to hard to be flexible. America, African Americans as well, is too diverse to advocate or solicit a public policy of one size fits all. What works in California may not work in Tennessee. What works for me may not work for you. What will work is a political environment that will allow diverse solutions to diverse problems. 

No candidate can solve each and every problem of  his and her constituency. It is ridiculous for him or her to suggest he or she can. Just as well, it is foolish for his or her voters to think that he or she can. If Mr. Ford can produce a platform that the majority of Tennesseans can agree with, he&#039;ll win the election. If not, he&#039;ll lose. However, he must run on his platform and not his party&#039;s. If his party&#039;s platform conflicts with his, maybe its time for him to leave his party and be independent. If so, he just might get elected. 

To me, its the candidate and his or her platform that matters and not the party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#8217;s partisan politics is the problem. It&#8217;s time for Congressional candidates to run on their own platform, instead of party loyalty. Partisanship politics makes it to hard to be flexible. America, African Americans as well, is too diverse to advocate or solicit a public policy of one size fits all. What works in California may not work in Tennessee. What works for me may not work for you. What will work is a political environment that will allow diverse solutions to diverse problems. </p>
<p>No candidate can solve each and every problem of  his and her constituency. It is ridiculous for him or her to suggest he or she can. Just as well, it is foolish for his or her voters to think that he or she can. If Mr. Ford can produce a platform that the majority of Tennesseans can agree with, he&#8217;ll win the election. If not, he&#8217;ll lose. However, he must run on his platform and not his party&#8217;s. If his party&#8217;s platform conflicts with his, maybe its time for him to leave his party and be independent. If so, he just might get elected. </p>
<p>To me, its the candidate and his or her platform that matters and not the party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whereIstand.com/adamelijah</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66389</link>
		<dc:creator>whereIstand.com/adamelijah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66389</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;A More Moderate Black Leader&lt;/strong&gt;

Independent Conservative LaShawn Barber has a post up on Harold Ford, the frontu</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>A More Moderate Black Leader</strong></p>
<p>Independent Conservative LaShawn Barber has a post up on Harold Ford, the frontu</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vargas</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66388</link>
		<dc:creator>vargas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:43:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66388</guid>
		<description>I agree with ech on the issue of Social Security. Privatizing it by using the options given to us on the table right now by the current administration would be a foolish idea.

I also disagree with Ford when he says that people making $300,000 a year or more should be deprived of their SS benefits. If you pay money into the damned system you deserve your damned benefits, no matter what amount of money you make during your lifetime.

I also disagree with the poster who claimed that people who make $300,000 a year or more are more productive citizens. That&#039;s a load of class-based bullcrap. Wealthier citizens aren&#039;t neccessarily more productive than anyone else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with ech on the issue of Social Security. Privatizing it by using the options given to us on the table right now by the current administration would be a foolish idea.</p>
<p>I also disagree with Ford when he says that people making $300,000 a year or more should be deprived of their SS benefits. If you pay money into the damned system you deserve your damned benefits, no matter what amount of money you make during your lifetime.</p>
<p>I also disagree with the poster who claimed that people who make $300,000 a year or more are more productive citizens. That&#8217;s a load of class-based bullcrap. Wealthier citizens aren&#8217;t neccessarily more productive than anyone else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TexasFred</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66384</link>
		<dc:creator>TexasFred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66384</guid>
		<description>Ford appears to be a decent person, it&#039;s a shame when a declared Dem has more Conservative values than a lot of conservatives.

We are so over-run with RINO&#039;s anymore, a breath of FRESH air is needed, but IMO, that *fresh air* has got to be Independent AND Conservative, both parties, Repub and Dem have left their members behind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ford appears to be a decent person, it&#8217;s a shame when a declared Dem has more Conservative values than a lot of conservatives.</p>
<p>We are so over-run with RINO&#8217;s anymore, a breath of FRESH air is needed, but IMO, that *fresh air* has got to be Independent AND Conservative, both parties, Repub and Dem have left their members behind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ech</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66383</link>
		<dc:creator>ech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66383</guid>
		<description>Thomas wrote: &lt;i&gt;if I make over $300,000 a year (which means a much larger chunk of my income gets taken out for SS taxes)&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Actually, a smaller chunk of your income gets taken out for SS if you have $300k of earned income. SS taxes (OASDI, the non-Medicare part) stop at roughly $90k of earned income, so you would have $210k of income with no SS tax. Therefore as a percentage of income, your SS taxes go down. Of course, SS payments are not linear, so that a maxed-out contributor with $90k of income doesn&#039;t necessarially get twice what a $45k income person.

Of course, asking high income retirees to forego SS is patently unfair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas wrote: <i>if I make over $300,000 a year (which means a much larger chunk of my income gets taken out for SS taxes)&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Actually, a smaller chunk of your income gets taken out for SS if you have $300k of earned income. SS taxes (OASDI, the non-Medicare part) stop at roughly $90k of earned income, so you would have $210k of income with no SS tax. Therefore as a percentage of income, your SS taxes go down. Of course, SS payments are not linear, so that a maxed-out contributor with $90k of income doesn&#8217;t necessarially get twice what a $45k income person.</p>
<p>Of course, asking high income retirees to forego SS is patently unfair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/02/20/harold-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-66381</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=1832#comment-66381</guid>
		<description>Let me make sure I understand this.. if I make over $300,000 a year (which means a much larger chunk of my income gets taken out for SS taxes) then I get penalized by not getting any of it back when I retire?  Somebody please explain to me how that&#039;s not deceptive, government sponsored socialism?  I make too much therefore my previously paid SS taxes go to retirees who make less than me.

Speaking of SS.. whatever happened to the big deal W made about it?  Wasn&#039;t that a huge objective of his and the worst problem facing us according to him?  Then it just quietly disappeared.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me make sure I understand this.. if I make over $300,000 a year (which means a much larger chunk of my income gets taken out for SS taxes) then I get penalized by not getting any of it back when I retire?  Somebody please explain to me how that&#8217;s not deceptive, government sponsored socialism?  I make too much therefore my previously paid SS taxes go to retirees who make less than me.</p>
<p>Speaking of SS.. whatever happened to the big deal W made about it?  Wasn&#8217;t that a huge objective of his and the worst problem facing us according to him?  Then it just quietly disappeared.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

