HD Directv Tivo unit no longer in short supply

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

On 5-Mar-2005, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

> If the promises come from the Marketing Department, rather than the
> Engineering Department, you have a problem.
>
> Sort of like the difference between statements from the Congressional
> Budget Office versus those from the Secretary of the Treasury.

You are so right!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
>Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
>Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
>
>Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
>the US Government means.

You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <d0e2e8$g6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

> In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
> >Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
> >
> >Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
> >the US Government means.
>
> You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
> had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
> away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
> In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
> --

When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
and the economy will turn around"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> writes:
> jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
> > You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
> > had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
> > away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
> > In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
>
> When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
> been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
> Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
> and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
> and the economy will turn around"

Five years and we're still waiting...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

The discussion here no longer has anything to do with the subject.
Please take it to a political discussion group. I like politics as much
as the next person, but not when it is in the wrong group.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0e2e8$g6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
>>Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
>>
>>Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
>>the US Government means.
>
>You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
>had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
>away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
>In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
The libefrals will no longer have their little pork barrel to spend.

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-82798F.04564106032005@news1.east.earthlink.net>, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <d0e2e8$g6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>
>> In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
>> >Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
>> >
>> >Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
>> >the US Government means.
>>
>> You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
>> had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
>> away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
>> In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
>> --
>
>When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
>been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
>Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
>and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
>and the economy will turn around"
That is untrue, Clintons so called surplus was false. It was padded with
worthless internet upstarts,energy companies padding their values,etc ad
nauseum. It was a false economy and it began to collapse way before Bush was
elected.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0h4um$gjc$2@news.xmission.com>,
glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:

> In article <jzwick3-82798F.04564106032005@news1.east.earthlink.net>, Jack
> Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <d0e2e8$g6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
> >> >Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
> >> >
> >> >Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
> >> >the US Government means.
> >>
> >> You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
> >> had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
> >> away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
> >> In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
> >> --
> >
> >When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
> >been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
> >Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
> >and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
> >and the economy will turn around"
> That is untrue, Clintons so called surplus was false. It was padded with
> worthless internet upstarts,energy companies padding their values,etc ad
> nauseum. It was a false economy and it began to collapse way before Bush was
> elected.

Nice try. The Federal Government HAD a surplus. Call it false if you
like, but the dollars were real. I suppose the Bush deficit is false
in your warped world? It's OK, Hillary will be President soon enough.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d0h4pc$gjc$1@news.xmission.com>,
glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:

> In article <d0e2e8$g6$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
> (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
> >In article <I6rWd.28405$uc.13279@trnddc09>, <L230j@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>Alan Greenspan indicated this week that it may not be possible to 'save
> >>Social Security' without more or less bankrupting the economy.
> >>
> >>Thus Bush and Greenspan have told us what the 'full faith and backing' of
> >>the US Government means.
> >
> >You have to give this Administration credit for at least trying. Clinton
> >had a committee look into it, make recommendations, and then it faded
> >away into the night. Now we're 10 years later and still without a fix.
> >In 15 SS will no longer subsidize deficit spending.
> The libefrals will no longer have their little pork barrel to spend.

Bush has his Pork Barrel of Welfare for the rich. Just ask Senator
McCain.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
>been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
>Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
>and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
>and the economy will turn around"

that surplus existed in paper form only. And it wouldn't have changed
the reality of the problems with pay as you go SS and Medicare.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <d0hdbc$peb$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

> Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >When Clinton left, the Budget was way to the surplus side, and if it had
> >been left that way, General Revenue funds could easily have been used for
> >Social Security and Medicare. Instead Bush had his tax cuts for the rich;
> >and his yearly promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Just give me this tax cut
> >and the economy will turn around"
>
> that surplus existed in paper form only. And it wouldn't have changed
> the reality of the problems with pay as you go SS and Medicare.

Wrong on both counts. The deficit was being paid down, and with a
surplus, General Revenue funds (i.e. the Surplus) could have been used
for Social Security. Indeed, all that needs be done now to "save" Social
Security is to undue the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $300,000
per year.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-4FB86A.08511407032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Indeed, all that needs be done now to "save" Social Security is to
> undue the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $300,000 per year.

And change the law to allow income-tax revenues to go into the social
security trust fund.

An alternative measure would be to raise or remove the $90,000 cap.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Sean]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:32:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>In article <d0c38m$2ifh$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>
>> In article <c3qb21d76jfm8dp6d79ort4jv4h5vppnpg@4ax.com>, Sean <none> wrote:
>> >>In article <ga6921h2lv60hqi13l540l6oihpn96kqgc@4ax.com>, Sean <none> wrote:
>> >>>Directv will have a far superior "media Center" dvr of their own
>> >>>available later this year. 2005. I'm sure after all the resources they
>> >That's the beauty of this. It doesn't have to be the geratest DVR ever
>> >produced. Just adequate at first and they'll stop selling Tivo's and
>> >replacing the old ones.
>>
>> So you're no longer holding to your claims of "far superior?" Will
>> "later this year" go next?
>>
>> No one has yet to match the HDtivo, and no one has yet even tried the
>> distributed media center that the rumors claim of this new wonder box.
>> I'm pretty sure I'll still be using the hdtivo into 2006. And I suspect
>> I'll hold off on the swap as long as I can manage.
>
>DirecTv has said again and again, it will continue to sell TiVo units
>through 2007.


Liar.

It has said it will continue to support tivo boxes for the foreseeable
future.

Only a moron would think that they'll continue to sell Tivo's after
spending million sdeveloping their own product.

But then again. Jackie is a moron.

Sean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

On 7-Mar-2005, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> And change the law to allow income-tax revenues to go into the social
> security trust fund.

I don't know what all of this has to do with there no longer being a
shortage of DirecTV TIVO units.

But I do know that no law needs to be changed to 'allow income-tax revenues
to go into the social security trust fund' as what the fund now holds is a
lot of US government bonds which can legally be paid (and must be paid) only
with funds from general revenues.

That is the heart of the problem: no politician in Washington is willing to
stop spending the social security income and begin to pay back the bonds
that have been issued to the social security trust fund in previous years.

All the talk about demographics, private accounts, etc. is a smoke screen to
hide what has really happened and enable politicians of both parties to
avoid pleading guilty to grand theft on a scale previously unknown in
history.

Even Saddam's theft of funds from the Iraq treasury pales in comparison with
what Washington politicians have done with social security funds over the
years!