Limbaugh praises Hawaii's socialist, pro-union health care system
Spartakus
Hawaii following treatment for chest pains, was he aware that he was
heaping praises on a very socialist health care system staffed by
members of a strong union?
"Whether he realized it or not, Limbaugh was praising the care
he received from union nurses in one of the country's most
progressive health care systems. On behalf of the labor
movement and health reform advocates everywhere,
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, Rush!"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Jim Alder
effd3e...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I didn't see anything in your post or the article that explained why
Hawaii's system is 'socialist'. Socialism is a GoVERNMENT economic system.
Just because the state tells employers that they have to cover their
employees, that does not make it Socialism. But then, I knew I'd be
disappointed when I read the first part of the first sentence, which read
"Over the past year of Obama's presidency, conservative
blowhard Rush Limbaugh ..."
Liberals are such children. They couldn't write an unbiased article if
their life depended on it.
Hawaii's healthcare system works better than most, they say. It's probably
because the law forces employers to cover all their part time surfer dudes who
are in perfect health and never see a doctor.
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
Paladin
Hawaii's health care system works better than most
because the State exerts more control over insurance
providers than any other state does. It's like social
security: it works because the State forces the healthy
and young to pay into a system that benefits the least
healthy and young.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder wrote:
Wow. I don't really know where to start or what's the saddest part - that
you seem to think that's fair is pretty sad. But so is the fact that you think
Social Security works. Add to it that you think government strongarm tactics
make health care work better and that you think you can just say it and it is
so. My scenario made a lot more sense and even I only said it was 'probably'
so.
And to top it all off, none of this equals socialism. But thanks for
playing.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
After all these years, you still don't have the faintest clue what
socialism is, or how insurance works.
Damn, but you are one damn bastard, Alderberry.
Steve
In David Bryan (Zepp) Jamieson's fantasy world, socialism is where he
can get other's to want to take care of him.... Of course, only his
dog will ever care about him at all.
Can you say "unmarked grave," Bryan?
Jim Alder
news:g407k5ts253noc02q...@4ax.com:
I can say Zeppy the Pinhead - I always get a kick out of these guys who
always say "You don't know a thing about... whatever" but they never bother to
explain what they're talking about or what you got wrong. It's probably
because every time they speak their mind, they show themselves for the morons
they are.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:30:07 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Socialism is a GoVERNMENT economic system.
>
>BWHAHAHAHA
>
>That's a definition worthy of a dumb cocksucker, ALDERLOON
Knew he couldn't do it.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
Oh, look, Alderloon has gone scampering behind Steve's skirts again.
How cute.
Socialism has been defined many times on these groups, but you are
willfully stupid.
Here's the wikipedia one: Socialism refers to various theories of
economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and
administration of the means of production and allocation of resources,
and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all
individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor
expended
Steve
wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
Most of the Hippie generation grew up, established their own identity,
and went on with their lives. Then there were a few, like Zepp, who
had no identity at all other then the hippie culture. Had it not been
for the Kumbaya revival of the 60s and 70s, these misfits would have
simply drifted away into misfit-land, but the tie-dye crowd gave them
an identity and a voice.. It's too bad for them (and good for the
rest of us) that those voices are now nothing more than background
noise...
Steve
Bullshit! Socialism as promoted by Jamieson, is where the government
controls where and how much you work, takes the profits from the goods
you make and gives them to other people regaredless of how much work
they do... Jamieson figures that the government should support his
lazy, fat ass because, after all, he's a human being and he has
needs...
Dr. Michael Mancini
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:194f71be-05da-432a...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> When Rush Limbaugh was released from Queen's Hospital in Honolulu,
> Hawaii following treatment for chest pains, was he aware that he was
> heaping praises on a very socialist health care system staffed by
> members of a strong union?
So, are you saying that the health care provided to Rush was paid for by
Obama money? Not a dime was charged to him or his insurance carrier?
As for unions, weren't they the primary reason why Government Motors failed?
Paladin
Social Security = socialism. Burns your asshole,
doesn't it?
Social Security does work, quite well. Millions of
Americans who should have been provided retirement
benefits from their jobs did not; all they have is a
lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
Paladin
Ah, jimmy, ye of such a low intellect, labeling someone
else with your mommy's pet name for you.
Jim Alder
news:nkh7k5dp59brul4je...@4ax.com:
Oh, look. Zeppy the Pinhead is still gender confused. How creepy.
>>Socialism has been defined many times on these groups, but you are
>>willfully stupid.
I know the definition, Pinhead.
>>Here's the wikipedia one: Socialism refers to various theories of
>>economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and
>>administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a
>>society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with
a
>>method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended
Here's another one. From each according to his ability to each according
to his need.
> Bullshit! Socialism as promoted by Jamieson, is where the government
> controls where and how much you work, takes the profits from the goods
> you make and gives them to other people regaredless of how much work
> they do... Jamieson figures that the government should support his
> lazy, fat ass because, after all, he's a human being and he has
> needs...
You're 90% accurate. Everything except the part about him being a human
being.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Nope. Incompetent management is why GM failed, and a huge loss from
playing with derivatives.
The health system in Hawaii is close to single payer, and the hospital
staff are all union. The resulting health care system is what Rush
was holding up of a reason not to change the system in the other 49
states.
>
>
>
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Haven't seen his arrest record, have you?
>
>>>Socialism has been defined many times on these groups, but you are
>>>willfully stupid.
>
> I know the definition, Pinhead.
Then why are you wasting our time whining that nobody will tell you
what it is?
>
>>>Here's the wikipedia one: Socialism refers to various theories of
>>>economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and
>>>administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a
>>>society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with
>a
>>>method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended
>
> Here's another one. From each according to his ability to each according
>to his need.
>
That's Marxism, bubbles.
>> Bullshit! Socialism as promoted by Jamieson, is where the government
>> controls where and how much you work, takes the profits from the goods
>> you make and gives them to other people regaredless of how much work
>> they do... Jamieson figures that the government should support his
>> lazy, fat ass because, after all, he's a human being and he has
>> needs...
>
> You're 90% accurate. Everything except the part about him being a human
>being.
Lick each others wounds, little right wingers.
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
I figure that it's Zepp that must have an arrest record.. I figure
that's why he abandoned his real name of David Bryan Jamieson in
favor of ther AKA of Zepp.
>>>>Socialism has been defined many times on these groups, but you are
>>>>willfully stupid.
>>
>> I know the definition, Pinhead.
>
>Then why are you wasting our time whining that nobody will tell you
>what it is?
>>
>>>>Here's the wikipedia one: Socialism refers to various theories of
>>>>economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and
>>>>administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a
>>>>society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with
>>a
>>>>method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended
>>
>> Here's another one. From each according to his ability to each according
>>to his need.
>>
>That's Marxism, bubbles.
Marxist socialism to be exact.
>>> Bullshit! Socialism as promoted by Jamieson, is where the government
>>> controls where and how much you work, takes the profits from the goods
>>> you make and gives them to other people regaredless of how much work
>>> they do... Jamieson figures that the government should support his
>>> lazy, fat ass because, after all, he's a human being and he has
>>> needs...
>>
>> You're 90% accurate. Everything except the part about him being a human
>>being.
>
>Lick each others wounds, little right wingers.
Better than what Zepp licks...
Jim Alder
news:qvadnffrq4I...@giganews.com:
If you'd get your head out of your asshole, you'd know we were talking
about Hawaii's health care system and the claim that IT represented socialism
in some way, dumb shit.
> Social Security does work, quite well.
No, it doesn't.
> Millions of
> Americans who should have been provided retirement
> benefits from their jobs did not; all they have is a
> lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>
>
--
Jim Alder
news:44n7k5lvli9tncjar...@4ax.com:
Zeppy the Pinhead likes to claim victory over me when he knows I killfiled
him long ago and won't respond.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
And yet poor little Alderberry whine follows me around, just like the
Stalker, and moans.
Imagine that.
Well, if he HAS killfiled me, then there's no point in wasting time on
him, is there?
Spartakus
> > When Rush Limbaugh was released from Queen's Hospital in Honolulu,
> > Hawaii following treatment for chest pains, was he aware that he was
> > heaping praises on a very socialist health care system staffed by
> > members of a strong union?
> So, are you saying that the health care provided to Rush was paid for by
> Obama money? Not a dime was charged to him or his insurance carrier?
Gee, for a "doctor", you sure are illiterate.
Perhaps you should take a break from stalking other Usenet posters on
threads that ended 4-5 years ago, and read the article I linked to.
Hawaii's system for health insurance is quite different from the other
49 states.
> As for unions, weren't they the primary reason why Government Motors failed?
Nope. It was (mis)management, not the unions.
The Chief Instigator
> "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
>
>> > When Rush Limbaugh was released from Queen's Hospital in Honolulu,
>> > Hawaii following treatment for chest pains, was he aware that he was
>> > heaping praises on a very socialist health care system staffed by
>> > members of a strong union?
>
>> So, are you saying that the health care provided to Rush was paid for by
>> Obama money? Not a dime was charged to him or his insurance carrier?
>
> Gee, for a "doctor", you sure are illiterate.
No kidding...but I'd appreciate Bobby hopping in his car and heading west on
Pierce Street downtown, from Chartres to at least Brazos. He might learn
something.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Abbotsford 4, Houston 3 (OT, January 3)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, January 6 at Texas, 7:35
Paladin
Hey, doofus, I mentioned social security merely as an
illustration of how well government programs usually
work. You attacked SS, leading me to defending it.
>
>> Social Security does work, quite well.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Careful there, girly, your ignorance is showing.
Paladin
the greed of executives caused their problems.
Japanese CEOs are limited by law to a maximum salary of
$200,000. The three CEOs of American auto mfg received
a combined total in the hundreds of millions--per year.
Every time they forced unions to accept a pay cut, they
gave their top executives millions of dollars in
bonuses, so all that suffering by the lowly line
workers didn't do a damn thing for company profitability.
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing,
>medicine, electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
Who says they "should have been provided
retirement benefits from their jobs?"
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
Zepp likes to pretend that the guffaws he hears behind his back are
moans...
>Imagine that.
>
>Well, if he HAS killfiled me, then there's no point in wasting time on
>him, is there?
Well.. actually, all you have these days is time, Jamieson... and
nothing much to spend it on...
Jim Alder
I know. That was the sad part, remember? That's why I ignored it when I
said none of 'this' was socialism.
> You attacked SS, leading me to defending it.
And a sterling defense it was.
>>> Social Security does work, quite well.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Careful there, girly,
Mommy! He called me "girly"! That's cheating!
It's also childish and stupid. Just so you know.
> your ignorance is showing.
Actually your liberalism is showing.
Jim Alder
> "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>> Jim Alder wrote:
>>> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>> "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, look, Alderloon has gone scampering behind Steve's skirts again.
>>>>>>>> How cute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, look. Zeppy the Pinhead is still gender confused. How creepy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't seen his arrest record, have you?
>>>>
>>>> I figure that it's Zepp that must have an arrest record.. I figure
>>>> that's why he abandoned his real name of David Bryan Jamieson in favor
>>>> of ther AKA of Zepp.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Socialism has been defined many times on these groups, but you are
>>>>>>>> willfully stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the definition, Pinhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why are you wasting our time whining that nobody will tell you
>>>>> what it is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the wikipedia one: Socialism refers to various theories of
>>>>>>>> economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership
>>>>>>>> and administration of the means of production and allocation of
>>>>>>>> resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources
>>>>>>>> for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the
>>>>>>>> amount of labor expended
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's another one. From each according to his ability to each
>>>>>> according to his need.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's Marxism, bubbles.
>>>>
>>>> Marxist socialism to be exact.
Don't confuse Pinhead with things like that.
>>>>>>> Bullshit! Socialism as promoted by Jamieson, is where the
>>>>>>> government controls where and how much you work, takes the profits
>>>>>>> from the goods you make and gives them to other people regaredless
>>>>>>> of how much work they do... Jamieson figures that the government
>>>>>>> should support his lazy, fat ass because, after all, he's a human
>>>>>>> being and he has needs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're 90% accurate. Everything except the part about him being a
>>>>>> human being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lick each others wounds, little right wingers.
>>>>
>>>> Better than what Zepp licks...
>>>
>>> Zeppy the Pinhead likes to claim victory over me when he knows I
>>> killfiled him long ago and won't respond.
>>
>>And yet poor little Alderberry whine follows me around, just like the
>>Stalker, and moans.
See? Now it's ME following HIM around.
> Zepp likes to pretend that the guffaws he hears behind his back are
> moans...
He likes to pretend a lot of things.
>> Imagine that.
>>
>> Well, if he HAS killfiled me, then there's no point in wasting time on
>> him, is there?
>
> Well.. actually, all you have these days is time, Jamieson... and
> nothing much to spend it on...
He said 'waste time,' Steve - and I can't imagine a more accurate
description of his time here.
Paladin
When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
applies for the job.
Other than that, it's the smart thing to do. Imagine
if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
of millions of older people and crippled younger people
living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
trash bins for rotting food. Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
to wipe their flabby asses.
Jim Alder
GRtnWR...@giganews.com:
> Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
>>> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>
>> Who says they "should have been provided retirement benefits from
>> their jobs?"
>
>
> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
> applies for the job.
>
> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do. Imagine
> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
> trash bins for rotting food.
You must be referring to the United States BEFORE Social Security was
enacted?
Oh, wait....
Imagine if YOU will a country where the government doesn't force
businesses to extract money from their employees paychecks, match it and send
it to the government to use as it likes until that system is bankrupt, all the
while convincing suckers like you that it will be used to support you in your
declining years. A gigantic ponzi scheme that would get any private
corporation arrested and easily convicted.
> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
> to wipe their flabby asses.
Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
life.
Paladin
> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote in news:-KOdnfNlYN-
> GRtnWR...@giganews.com:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
>>>> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>> Who says they "should have been provided retirement benefits from
>>> their jobs?"
>>
>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>> applies for the job.
>>
>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do. Imagine
>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
>> trash bins for rotting food.
>
> You must be referring to the United States BEFORE Social Security was
> enacted?
>
> Oh, wait....
Yes, the US was once like a third world nation. Read
Sinclair Lewis or Jack London.
>
> Imagine if YOU will a country where the government doesn't force
> businesses to extract money from their employees paychecks, match it and send
> it to the government to use as it likes until that system is bankrupt, all the
> while convincing suckers like you that it will be used to support you in your
> declining years. A gigantic ponzi scheme that would get any private
> corporation arrested and easily convicted.
Actually it was in fine shape till Ronnie Reagan opened
the "lockbox" and moved SS into general funds trying to
hide some of his deficit spending.
>
>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
>> to wipe their flabby asses.
>
> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
> life.
I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers. I accept that
some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
wages from their employees but profits from their
mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against
their worst abuses of their economic power.
Paladin
>
> This nation only became the greatestest on earth because of the labor
> movement, collective bargaining, and progressives removing government
> from the side of business and the wealth class---allowing the rise of
> a great middle class
>
> Reagan and Bush instituted policies that ruined the middle class.
>
Amen, brother.
Paladin
I surely hope so. That I proudly declare that I am a
Liberal illustrates my above average intellect. That
you are a neo-tarded republican is proof of willfulyour
ignorance.
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing,
>>> medicine, electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>
>> Who says they "should have been provided
>> retirement benefits from their jobs?"
>
>
>When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>applies for the job.
Because you say so, huh?
>Other than that, it's the smart thing to do.
Bullshit! That's only a smart thing to offer employees if you're
looking for responsible employees who are looking ahead to their
future..
> Imagine
>if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
>trash bins for rotting food.
Imagine people who are responsible enough to put away money for their
old age...
Imagine them doing that without having a nanny government forcing them
to do it.
>Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
>to wipe their flabby asses.
<chuckle> so how exactly does a person who can't even hold down a job
hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder wrote:
>> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
>>>>> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>>> Who says they "should have been provided retirement benefits from their
>>>> jobs?"
>>>
>>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>>> applies for the job.
>>>
>>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do. Imagine
>>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in trash bins for
>>> rotting food.
>>
>> You must be referring to the United States BEFORE Social Security was
>> enacted?
>>
>> Oh, wait....
>
> Yes, the US was once like a third world nation. Read
> Sinclair Lewis or Jack London.
Novel by Sinclair Lewis, published in 1920. The story of "Main Street" is seen
through the eyes of Carol Kennicott, a young woman married to a Midwestern
doctor who settles in the Minnesota town of Gopher Prairie (modeled on Lewis'
hometown of Sauk Center). The power of the book derives from Lewis' careful
rendering of local speech, customs, and social amenities.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Sounds like Ethiopia all over again.
>> Imagine if YOU will a country where the government doesn't force
>> businesses to extract money from their employees paychecks, match it and
send
>> it to the government to use as it likes until that system is bankrupt, all
the
>> while convincing suckers like you that it will be used to support you in
your
>> declining years. A gigantic ponzi scheme that would get any private
>> corporation arrested and easily convicted.
>
>
> Actually it was in fine shape till Ronnie Reagan opened
> the "lockbox" and moved SS into general funds trying to
> hide some of his deficit spending.
That was the Johnson administration in the sixties, genius.
>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>> flabby asses.
>>
>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
>> life.
>
> I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
"Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
> I accept that
> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
> wages from their employees but profits from their
> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against
> their worst abuses of their economic power.
Yeah, you got no issues.
Jim Alder
news:beqdnXgoRv6...@giganews.com:
So this bullshit IS a religion with you people? I thought that was just a
figure of speech.
Jim Alder
news:vpudnbmMF8K...@giganews.com:
Heheheheheheheheh
> That you are a neo-tarded republican is proof of willfulyour
> ignorance.
My what now?
james g. keegan jr.
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote in
> news:vpudnbmMF8K...@giganews.com:
> > That you are a neo-tarded republican is proof of willfulyour
> > ignorance.
>
> My what now?
your what you just demonstrated.
Salty Stan
The truth is, Social Security is a bad investment. On average, 2/3 of
the money you give to Social Security will not be returned to you.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Utter horseshit. Social Security has a 1% administrative overhead,
compared to up to 30% for private pension plans. And one in three
private pension plans fail.
Paladin
Not true.
The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone
was probably confused by a change implemented at the
end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered
how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget
but did not change the actual operations of the fund
itself:
Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and
other Federal programs that operate through trust funds
were counted officially in the budget. This was done
administratively by President Johnson. At the time
Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974
Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals
through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the
budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions
were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust
fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
In response to this concern, a series of measures were
enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a
*more distinct part of the budget*. Meaning that
interest earned on social security funds is in fact
added to general funds rather than left in SS. Reagan
did this.
>
>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>> flabby asses.
>>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
>>> life.
>> I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
>
> "Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
hey, tea-bagger was the name your *founder* gave
it--you know the guy: he was photographed holding a
sign calling Obama a "nigar." Dumb fuck you side can't
spell a racist epitaph and I'm slimy???
>
>> I accept that
>> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
>> wages from their employees but profits from their
>> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
>> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
>> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
>> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
>> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
>> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against
>> their worst abuses of their economic power.
>
> Yeah, you got no issues.
I damn well do have issues. It's called belief in
government working to control the worst excesses of big
business as well as the crimes of individuals.
Government regulations are usually a good thing; the
ease with which administering bureaucrats can be bribed
is very bad.
>
Paladin
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:48:58 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing,
>>>> medicine, electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>> Who says they "should have been provided
>>> retirement benefits from their jobs?"
>>
>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>> applies for the job.
>
> Because you say so, huh?
Because taking care of the people who performed the
labor that made you wealthy is the right, moral thing
to do.
>
>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do.
>
> Bullshit! That's only a smart thing to offer employees if you're
> looking for responsible employees who are looking ahead to their
> future..
when people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
working class is damned well hard enough.
>
>> Imagine
>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
>> trash bins for rotting food.
>
> Imagine people who are responsible enough to put away money for their
> old age...
When people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
working class is damned well hard enough.
>
> Imagine them doing that without having a nanny government forcing them
> to do it.
>
>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
>> to wipe their flabby asses.
>
> <chuckle> so how exactly does a person who can't even hold down a job
> hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good
for business. That's why they import all those illegal
aliens; that's why they engineered this fiscal problem.
When millions are out of work, wages either come down
or stagnate while the costs of goods and services
continue to rise.
You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass
and learn to think for yourselves.
Paladin
Know why that is? The wealthy don't pay into social
security--they pay only from income and only on the
first $200k while everyone else pays the percentage on
every dollar they ear. And then there's the fact that
if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he
must still eat, his family must be provided for.
Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether
from dividends, stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
Paladin
Doofus, the word "amen" is a figure of speech: it is
well integrated into our lexicon--sorta like saying
"shit" when displeased.
Paladin
Your willful ignorance, doofus. Shall we all begin to
point out one another's typos or continue to ignore
them as being of no importance.
Jim Alder
news:zNGdnaaowsg...@giganews.com:
Not really. The poor and middle class also only pay on the first 200K they
make. Not to mention the fact that the wealthy are being forced to pay for
something they don't need in the slightest.
> And then there's the fact that
> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he
> must still eat, his family must be provided for.
Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
working life?
> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether
> from dividends, stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
Yeah! "Fix it" by making it even LESS fair.
Jim Alder
> was probably confused...
Then you should probably rush right over to A SHORT HISTORY OF SOCIAL
SECURITY and straighten him out!
http://hubpages.com/hub/A-SHORT-HISTORY-OF-SOCIAL-SECURIT
"As part of President Lyndon B. Johnson�s "Great Society" program Medicare
was added in 1965 by the Social Security act of 1965,. Social Security was
changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into
the General Fund for additional congressional revenue (THE LOCKBOX IS IN
PERIL)"
You might also want to drop by Wikianswers and straighten them out, too.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:When_was_social_security_put_into_the_genera
l_fund
"During the Vietnam War and the Johnson administration, legislation was
amended so that these monies could be moved into the General Fund and used for
anything Congress wanted to use them for."
The folks at the Free Press could stand a talking to, also.
http://www.free-press.biz/usa/ssi-trust-fund.htm
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust
Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
> by a change implemented at the
> end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered
> how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget
> but did not change the actual operations of the fund
> itself:
> Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and
> other Federal programs that operate through trust funds
> were counted officially in the budget. This was done
> administratively by President Johnson. At the time
> Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974
> Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals
> through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the
> budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions
> were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust
> fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
>
> In response to this concern, a series of measures were
> enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a
> *more distinct part of the budget*. Meaning that
> interest earned on social security funds is in fact
> added to general funds rather than left in SS. Reagan
> did this.
According to ....?
>>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>>> flabby asses.
>>>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
>>>> life. I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
>>
>> "Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
>
>
> hey, tea-bagger was the name your *founder* gave
> it--you know the guy: he was photographed holding a
> sign calling Obama a "nigar." Dumb fuck you side can't
> spell a racist epitaph and I'm slimy???
Yes, you are and I don't know who the fuck you're talking about.
>>> I accept that
>>> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
>>> wages from their employees but profits from their
>>> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
>>> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
>>> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
>>> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
>>> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
>>> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against their worst
>>> abuses of their economic power.
>>
>> Yeah, you got no issues.
>
>
> I damn well do have issues. It's called belief in
> government working to control the worst excesses of big
> business as well as the crimes of individuals.
Except it seems YOUR idea of the worst excesses is making a lot of money.
> Government regulations are usually a good thing;
No, they aren't.
> the
> ease with which administering bureaucrats can be bribed
> is very bad.
--
Jim Alder
Damn, I keep forgetting that humor impairment you people have. And FYI,
you're calling Gary Roselles "brother" - you should be careful who you invite
into your gene pool. Someone pissed in his a long time ago.
Jim Alder
Hey, you call people childish names, I point out dumb mistakes when people
claim to have an above average intellect but can't demonstrate one. You're
welcome to point out my typos if it will make you feel bette, but I'm having a
little trouble with the r key, just so you know.
Paladin
All that shit was ably refuted by Snopes. look it up.
at reputable sites.
>
>> by a change implemented at the
>> end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered
>> how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget
>> but did not change the actual operations of the fund
>> itself:
>> Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and
>> other Federal programs that operate through trust funds
>> were counted officially in the budget. This was done
>> administratively by President Johnson. At the time
>> Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974
>> Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals
>> through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the
>> budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions
>> were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust
>> fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
>>
>> In response to this concern, a series of measures were
>> enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a
>> *more distinct part of the budget*. Meaning that
>> interest earned on social security funds is in fact
>> added to general funds rather than left in SS. Reagan
>> did this.
>
> According to ....?
historical fact, back when you were still in diapers.
I lived through REagan, and that wasn't easy.
>
>>>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>>>> flabby asses.
>>>>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all his
>>>>> life. I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
>>> "Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
>>
>> hey, tea-bagger was the name your *founder* gave
>> it--you know the guy: he was photographed holding a
>> sign calling Obama a "nigar." Dumb fuck you side can't
>> spell a racist epitaph and I'm slimy???
>
> Yes, you are and I don't know who the fuck you're talking about.
Saw a clip of him today on CNN, holding his nigar sign.
He is credited with starting tea-baggers, long
before Dick Armey began throwing Richard Mellon
Scaife's money into it.
>
>>>> I accept that
>>>> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
>>>> wages from their employees but profits from their
>>>> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
>>>> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
>>>> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
>>>> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
>>>> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
>>>> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against their worst
>>>> abuses of their economic power.
>>> Yeah, you got no issues.
>>
>> I damn well do have issues. It's called belief in
>> government working to control the worst excesses of big
>> business as well as the crimes of individuals.
>
> Except it seems YOUR idea of the worst excesses is making a lot of money.
Yeah the filthy rich are doing swell.
>
>> Government regulations are usually a good thing;
>
> No, they aren't.
Childish repost
Paladin
Asinine statement. I'd love to earn $185k per day like
the CEO of one insurance company
>> And then there's the fact that
>> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he
>> must still eat, his family must be provided for.
>
> Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
> working life?
everyone isn't as perfect as you.
>
>> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether
>> from dividends, stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
>
> Yeah! "Fix it" by making it even LESS fair.
Fair? It's fair to you that one man is permitted to
accumulate enough wealth to give half a million dollars
to every family in the US while a significant number of
those families starve?
>
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
...even though their benefits don't increase?
Leftist's "solutions" always involve transfer of wealth.
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:48:58 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>>>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing,
>>>>> medicine, electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>>> Who says they "should have been provided
>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs?"
>>>
>>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>>> applies for the job.
>>
>> Because you say so, huh?
>
>
>Because taking care of the people who performed the
<chuckle> Whatever happen to the adult concept of taking care of one's
own self.
>labor that made you wealthy is the right, moral thing
>to do.
Because you say so, huh?
>>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do.
>>
>> Bullshit! That's only a smart thing to offer employees if you're
>> looking for responsible employees who are looking ahead to their
>> future..
>
>
>when people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
>working class is damned well hard enough.
It probably would have been a good idea for those people who are being
paid "subsistence wages" to have better prepared, and maybe they
should have delayed producing children until they were prepared. The
only reason most of those people are being paid "subsistence wages" is
because there are so many of them that fall in that unprepared
category.
>>> Imagine
>>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
>>> trash bins for rotting food.
>>
>> Imagine people who are responsible enough to put away money for their
>> old age...
>
>
>When people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
>working class is damned well hard enough.
>
>
>>
>> Imagine them doing that without having a nanny government forcing them
>> to do it.
>>
>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
>>> to wipe their flabby asses.
>>
>> <chuckle> so how exactly does a person who can't even hold down a job
>> hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
>
>
>nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good
>for business.
<chuckle> Homeless people aren't in the "labor pool?" Why not? Don't
they want to work?
You're drifting into nonsense... porobably because you can't answer
my questions..
> That's why they import all those illegal
>aliens; that's why they engineered this fiscal problem.
they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
hear...
> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>or stagnate while the costs of goods and services
>continue to rise.
So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
lower those costs..
>You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass
>and learn to think for yourselves.
Irony anyone?
Paladin
I judge a man on the content of his character, and here
on usenet having no other choice, I judge character on
the content of his posted messages. And this man's
posts describe a man both intelligent and concerned
about the welfare of his fellow man. Therefore, the man
is a brother of the body politic.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder wrote:
>> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>> Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>> Steve wrote:
Saying it don't make it so. The wealthy don't need that 'lowly check' and
they never will. Why should they pay more than you and get nothing?
> I'd love to earn $185k per day like
> the CEO of one insurance company
Then why don't you? Do you think you're smart enough or ambitious enough
to earn that kind of money? Nothing you've demonstrated here leads me to
believe that.
>>> And then there's the fact that
>>> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
>>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he must still eat, his
>>> family must be provided for.
>>
>> Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
>> working life?
>
> everyone isn't as perfect as you.
Preaching to the choir, bub. If only...
>>> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
>>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether from dividends,
>>> stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
>>
>> Yeah! "Fix it" by making it even LESS fair.
>
> Fair? It's fair to you that one man is permitted to
> accumulate enough wealth to give half a million dollars
> to every family in the US while a significant number of
> those families starve?
Permitted?! LOL! You voted for Obama BECAUSE he's a Marxist, didn't you?
And to answer your question, yes, I think it's fair that everyone gets the
same opportunity to make that kind of money. Some make it, some don't. I do
NOT think it's fair for those who are industrious and devote their lives to
the almighty dollar should have to foot the bill for people who skate through
life knocking up their high school girlfriend and making whatever other
mistakes you made. Life is full of choices.
Paladin
Jim, since I come into contact with so many pure
assholes among right wing posters (people like steve,
billababy and patriot games, people who describe their
own mothers as bitches) that I instinctively label
everyone who posts conservative as a bloviating,
childish, ignorant asshole. You appear to stand apart
from the right wing poster herd. So, when replying to
your postings I will try to control the urge to label
you with stevie's names for his own mommy. But, just
so you know, aren't you violating your own rule when
you label Roseles with a particularly vicious epitaph?
Is he your ex-brother in law or something?
Paladin
Actually, the majority are. Besides, the thread was
about the necessity for social security.
>
> You're drifting into nonsense... porobably because you can't answer
> my questions..
It ain't on me, stevie; it's on your inability to
comprehend the English language. You don't ask
questions: you rant, then ignore the responses.
>
>> That's why they import all those illegal
>> aliens; that's why they engineered this fiscal problem.
>
> they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
> hear...
Of course they did. They paid millions in bonuses to
people who lost their employers billions--clearly, in
order to increase the debt load the American taxpayer
had to pick up. The filthy rich pulled their money,
parked it overseas to avoid taxes here at home. They
haven't been investing in American businesses; instead,
they have been creating jobs in China and India.
>
>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>> or stagnate while the costs of goods and services
>> continue to rise.
>
> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
> lower those costs..
People have no choice; they withhold mortgage payments,
etc, and buy the groceries (at inflated prices) to feed
their hungry children.
>
>> You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass
>> and learn to think for yourselves.
>
> Irony anyone?
Fact.
Paladin
I'm not ruthless enough. I am a Democrat, therefore, I
have a conscience.
>
>>>> And then there's the fact that
>>>> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
>>>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he must still eat, his
>>>> family must be provided for.
>>> Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
>>> working life?
>> everyone isn't as perfect as you.
>
> Preaching to the choir, bub. If only...
Certainly preaching to the choir. nice of you to admit
your imperfections.
>
>>>> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
>>>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>>>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether from dividends,
>>>> stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
>>> Yeah! "Fix it" by making it even LESS fair.
>> Fair? It's fair to you that one man is permitted to
>> accumulate enough wealth to give half a million dollars
>> to every family in the US while a significant number of
>> those families starve?
>
> Permitted?! LOL! You voted for Obama BECAUSE he's a Marxist, didn't you?
Oh, I wish he were a Liberal. Centrist is another term
for easily scared or bought off.
>
> And to answer your question, yes, I think it's fair that everyone gets the
> same opportunity to make that kind of money. Some make it, some don't. I do
> NOT think it's fair for those who are industrious and devote their lives to
> the almighty dollar should have to foot the bill for people who skate through
> life knocking up their high school girlfriend and making whatever other
> mistakes you made. Life is full of choices.
True. You choose to be willfully ignorant.
Paladin
For you information, this nation's tax structure was
once based on and should be again based on an
escalating tax scale. Kinda like in public utilities
and fat government contracts. They're on a cost-plus
basis. Our tax system was designed to tax only the
excess earnings above the cost of living. If a family
of four needs x dollars just to provide basic needs,
earnings above that are and should be taxable. The
more excess earnings, the more you should pay in taxes.
But you republicans seem to feel that what is
considered basic needs ought to be higher for the
rich--after all, they have all those million-dollar
homes and million-dollar yachts and gardeners and
household servants to support-- while the working class
has only to pay mortgage or rent on one residence,
groceries and utilities and personal insurance and a
car payment and clothing and--well, you get the idea,
don't you? In my opinion the standard deduction should
be raised significantly and the top tax rate should be
raised exponentially. When JFK was elected the top tax
rate was, what, 98%? Didn't see any millionaires in
the bread lines in the 1960s, dude. They were doing
fine with a high tax rate--and the rest of us was doing
fine, too. Back then, the average CEO earned about 17
times what his average employee earned. Today, he
earns 517 times what his workers earn.
Force trade unions to accept pay cuts and give
million-dollar bonuses to the executives who forced the
cuts? Can't you find it in your soul to admit the
unfairness of wage inequities?
When Reagan was elected, this country enjoyed a huge
trade surplus, the highest standard of living on Earth,
a high per capita income compared to that of the rest
of the world, the healthiest people on Earth. About
two years into Reagan, our trade balance and average
standard of living began sliding into the negative as
Reagan lifted tariffs and cut taxes on the rich while
raising them on the middle class.
Jim Alder
I just did. You mean liberal blogs? No, thanks. Snopes is a liberal couple
with their own slant on things.
>>> by a change implemented at the
>>> end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered
>>> how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget
>>> but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself:
>>> Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and
>>> other Federal programs that operate through trust funds
>>> were counted officially in the budget. This was done
>>> administratively by President Johnson. At the time
>>> Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974
>>> Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals
>>> through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the
>>> budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions
>>> were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust
>>> fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
>>>
>>> In response to this concern, a series of measures were
>>> enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a
>>> *more distinct part of the budget*. Meaning that
>>> interest earned on social security funds is in fact
>>> added to general funds rather than left in SS. Reagan did this.
>>
>> According to ....?
>
> historical fact, back when you were still in diapers.
I was wearing diapers in the Truman administration, elitist punk, long
before your dad broke that condom.
> I lived through REagan, and that wasn't easy.
I'm sure it wasn't. I didn't enjoy living through Clinton and even less
for Obama. I expect if I actually HATED the opposition like you do, it would
be harder.
>>>>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>>>>> flabby asses.
>
>
>>>>>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all
his
>>>>>> life.
>
>
>>>>> I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
>
>
>>>> "Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
>>>
>>> hey, tea-bagger was the name your *founder* gave
>>> it--you know the guy: he was photographed holding a
>>> sign calling Obama a "nigar." Dumb fuck you side can't spell a racist
>>> epitaph and I'm slimy???
>>
>> Yes, you are and I don't know who the fuck you're talking about.
>
>
> Saw a clip of him today on CNN, holding his nigar sign.
What part of "I don't know who the fuck you're talking about" eluded you?
> He is credited with starting tea-baggers, long
> before Dick Armey began throwing Richard Mellon
> Scaife's money into it.
Another spurious claim on a par with your accusation of me 'siding with' a
racist. It's fun to make shit up to suit your own little hatefilled world,
isn't it?
>>>>> I accept that
>>>>> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
>>>>> wages from their employees but profits from their
>>>>> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
>>>>> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
>>>>> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
>>>>> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
>>>>> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
>>>>> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against their worst
abuses
>>>>> of their economic power.
>
>
>>>> Yeah, you got no issues.
>
>>
>>> I damn well do have issues. It's called belief in
>>> government working to control the worst excesses of big business as well
as
>>> the crimes of individuals.
>>
>> Except it seems YOUR idea of the worst excesses is making a lot of
money.
>
> Yeah the filthy rich are doing swell.
And you're not - boo fucking hoo.
>>> Government regulations are usually a good thing;
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Childish repost
You make claims with no validity and no proof. Why should I raise the bar?
Jim Alder
> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>Steve wrote:
>>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
>>>>>> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>>>> Who says they "should have been provided retirement benefits from
>>>>> their jobs?"
>>>>
>>>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>>>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man applies for
>>>> the job.
>>>
>>> Because you say so, huh?
>>
>>
>>Because taking care of the people who performed the
>
> <chuckle> Whatever happen to the adult concept of taking care of one's
> own self.
What kind of 'great society' would THAT be?
>>labor that made you wealthy is the right, moral thing to do.
>
> Because you say so, huh?
That would seem to be his basis for everything he writes here. He says so,
so it is so. Maybe a thunderclap or two would help his case?
>>>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do.
>>>
>>> Bullshit! That's only a smart thing to offer employees if you're
>>> looking for responsible employees who are looking ahead to their
>>> future..
>>
>>
>>when people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
>> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>>planning for the future. Day to day survival for the working class is
>>damned well hard enough.
>
> It probably would have been a good idea for those people who are being
> paid "subsistence wages" to have better prepared, and maybe they
> should have delayed producing children until they were prepared.
I tried that approach already. I was accused of being perfect. So far
that's the only thing he's gotten right! <g> I asked him why people who made
the right choices should finance those who didn't, but I don't have hopes of a
real answer.
> The
> only reason most of those people are being paid "subsistence wages" is
> because there are so many of them that fall in that unprepared
> category.
>
>>>> Imagine
>>>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>>>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>>>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in trash bins for
>>>> rotting food.
>>>
>>> Imagine people who are responsible enough to put away money for their
>>> old age...
>>
>>
>>When people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
>> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>>planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
>>working class is damned well hard enough.
Blind and monotonous repetition. I suspect this is a guy I killfiled not
long ago. Can't remember who it was.
>>> Imagine them doing that without having a nanny government forcing them
>>> to do it.
>>>
>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>> flabby asses.
>>>
>>> <chuckle> so how exactly does a person who can't even hold down a job
>>> hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
>>
>>
>>nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good for business.
>
> <chuckle> Homeless people aren't in the "labor pool?" Why not? Don't
> they want to work?
>
> You're drifting into nonsense... probably because you can't answer
> my questions..
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
>> That's why they import all those illegal aliens; that's why they
>> engineered this fiscal problem.
>
> they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
> hear...
Me, too! Is he saying that Barney Frank and the other Democrats who
downplayed the Fanny May/Freddie Mac problems Bush warned about did it on
purpose for some evil intent?
>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>>or stagnate while the costs of goods and services continue to rise.
>
> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
> lower those costs..
>
>>You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass and learn to
>>think for yourselves.
>
> Irony anyone?
By the buttload.
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
<LOL> Because you say so?
> Kinda like in public utilities
>and fat government contracts. They're on a cost-plus
>basis. Our tax system was designed to tax only the
>excess earnings above the cost of living. If a family
>of four needs x dollars just to provide basic needs,
>earnings above that are and should be taxable.
Not to fund their retirement..
>
>The
>more excess earnings, the more you should pay in taxes.
>But you republicans seem to feel that what is
>considered basic needs ought to be higher for the
>rich--after all, they have all those million-dollar
>homes and million-dollar yachts and gardeners and
>household servants to support-- while the working class
>has only to pay mortgage or rent on one residence,
>groceries and utilities and personal insurance and a
>car payment and clothing and--well, you get the idea,
>don't you? In my opinion the standard deduction should
>be raised significantly and the top tax rate should be
>raised exponentially. When JFK was elected the top tax
>rate was, what, 98%? Didn't see any millionaires in
>the bread lines in the 1960s, dude.
Don't call me "dude" Milt. I'm not a dude.
They were doing
>fine with a high tax rate--and the rest of us was doing
>fine, too. Back then, the average CEO earned about 17
>times what his average employee earned. Today, he
>earns 517 times what his workers earn.
Total bullshit.. Damned few CEOs make that much...
>Force trade unions to accept pay cuts and give
>million-dollar bonuses to the executives who forced the
>cuts? Can't you find it in your soul to admit the
>unfairness of wage inequities?
You know, even I think that a few CEOs of big companies that are near
belly-up make way too much. Hell look at the prick, Imelt, at GE, for
instance.. He took home 14 million in 2007 and drove the company to
near bankrupcy, but still got nearly 6 million in 2008...
...but the fact is that if you took all the money he makes and divied
it out evenly to all 323,000 of GE's employees it would amount to 43
bucks for the year 2007 and 16 bucks for 2008.
The hard cold fact is, Milt, that when you people whine about CEOs
salaries, it's got noting to do with workers not gwtting paid enough
and everything to do with class envy.
Steve
wrote:
It's Milt Shook He's become too embarrased to use his real name....
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
Then if they want to work they're already in the labor pool.
>> You're drifting into nonsense... porobably because you can't answer
>> my questions..
>
>
>It ain't on me, stevie; it's on your inability to
>comprehend the English language. You don't ask
>questions: you rant, then ignore the responses.
<LOL> I see... and yet you can't explain how people who can't even
hold down a job hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
>>> That's why they import all those illegal
>>> aliens; that's why they engineered this fiscal problem.
>>
>> they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
>> hear...
>
>
>Of course they did. They paid millions in bonuses to
>people who lost their employers billions-clearly, in
>order to increase the debt load the American taxpayer
>had to pick up.
Bullshit... the American taxpayer only had to pick it up because
Obama bailed them out.. ...and "they" had no reason to expect that to
happen. IOW, your "clearly" is just another figment of your wild
imagination.
> The filthy rich pulled their money,
>parked it overseas to avoid taxes here at home. They
>haven't been investing in American businesses; instead,
>they have been creating jobs in China and India.
<LOL> That makes it pretty hard to explain how American investments
got so expensive, Dummy.
>>
>>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>>> or stagnate while the costs of goods and services
>>> continue to rise.
>>
>> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
>> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
>> lower those costs..
>
>
>People have no choice; they withhold mortgage payments,
>etc, and buy the groceries (at inflated prices) to feed
>their hungry children.
Errrr, that doesn't answer the question... how does that make costs
of goods and services rise?
>>
>>> You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass
>>> and learn to think for yourselves.
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>
>Fact.
Your "facts" come sytraight out of your imagination..
Steve
wrote:
Jim, you do realize that "paladin" is Milt Shook, don't you?
Steve
53"@giganews.com> wrote:
"paladin is Milt Shook, of course... Shook's ignorance stands out
like a turd in a punchbowl.
Jim Alder
Heheheheheheheheh! You should consider a career in standup comedy.
But thank you for explaining why Ted Kennedy was buried in a pauper's
grave. Why Al Gore and John Kerry live in shacks and carpool in a Prius.
>>>>> And then there's the fact that
>>>>> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
>>>>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he must still eat, his
>>>>> family must be provided for.
>>>> Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
>>>> working life? everyone isn't as perfect as you.
>>
>> Preaching to the choir, bub. If only...
>
>
> Certainly preaching to the choir. nice of you to admit
> your imperfections.
>
>>
>>>>> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
>>>>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>>>>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether from dividends,
>>>>> stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses. Yeah! "Fix it" by making it
>>>>> even LESS fair.
>>
>>
>>> Fair? It's fair to you that one man is permitted to
>>> accumulate enough wealth to give half a million dollars
>>> to every family in the US while a significant number of those families
>>> starve?
>>
>> Permitted?! LOL! You voted for Obama BECAUSE he's a Marxist, didn't
you?
>
>
> Oh, I wish he were a Liberal. Centrist is another term
> for easily scared or bought off.
I wish he was just a Liberal, too. But you didn't answer my question. No
one here is talking about a centrist.
>> And to answer your question, yes, I think it's fair that everyone gets
the
>> same opportunity to make that kind of money. Some make it, some don't. I do
>> NOT think it's fair for those who are industrious and devote their lives to
>> the almighty dollar should have to foot the bill for people who skate
through
>> life knocking up their high school girlfriend and making whatever other
>> mistakes you made. Life is full of choices.
>
>
> True. You choose to be willfully ignorant.
LOL!
Jim Alder
dnXJQzue8s...@giganews.com:
Okay, then. Here you go:
GARY ROSELLES (aka "liberal@idiot...") left-wing sociopath and author
of the following �views� on race, homosexuality, death-threats and,
lest we forget, killing govt. officials and teenage girls:
"She (Katherine Harris) should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/...
"I call Kathering[sic] Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue
whore. ?What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb...
�May a real american someday have the honor of putting a bullet
between her eyes." -- Gary Roselles on B. Robertson's teenage
daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/346a12114c9884ee...
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having ?worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e5320...
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance ?of Race Loyalty
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da3...
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/...
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f926...
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that �them
blacks� should "stick ?to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2...
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles ?slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/...
(see header
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d9ccfefc3532...
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." � Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and ?slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/...
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/...
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion."
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl" -- Pure,
venomous hate-speech from "god-inspired" whackjob Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb...
Yeah, there's a real fucking credible authority----Hitchens a faggot
socialist." -- Gary Roselles, �f�-bomb droppin� rabid homophobe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/d2ab5e412...
"You're like that kid that has just been told that's not a hot-dog
he's sucking on" -- Gary Roselles, Pedophile, admits forcing oral
copulation on a child
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/fcf8198215ac03f2?...
> And this man's
> posts describe a man both intelligent and concerned
> about the welfare of his fellow man. Therefore, the man
> is a brother of the body politic.
Now guess his weight. LOL!
Jim Alder
>> welcome to point out my typos if it will make you feel better, but I'm
having a
>> little trouble with the r key, just so you know.
>>
>
>
> Jim, since I come into contact with so many pure
> assholes among right wing posters (people like steve,
> billababy and patriot games, people who describe their
> own mothers as bitches) that I instinctively label
> everyone who posts conservative as a bloviating,
> childish, ignorant asshole. You appear to stand apart
> from the right wing poster herd. So, when replying to
> your postings I will try to control the urge to label
> you with stevie's names for his own mommy.
I GUESS that's an olive branch, so I'll try to keep my opinions of
liberalism in general less anthropomorphised. But bear in mind that I think
the majority of its tenets are completely unfounded and based on greed and
emotion. Now, I can already hear the wheels turning so let me clarify
something. I don't consider it "greedy" to want to make money, even a lot of
money. That's "ambition." "Greed" is wanting what other people have, but not
being willing to do what they did to get it.
> But, just
> so you know, aren't you violating your own rule when
> you label Roseles with a particularly vicious epitaph?
> Is he your ex-brother in law or something?
Epitaph? Is he dead? I'll assume you meant to type "Epithet" and explain
that where Roselles is concerned, no pejoratives I know are low enough. I
think I explained that clearly in another post a minute ago. Let me know if
you need further clarification.
Jim Alder
news:89ednb4xael...@giganews.com:
> Steve wrote:
>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good for business.
>>
>> <chuckle> Homeless people aren't in the "labor pool?" Why not? Don't
>> they want to work?
>
>
> Actually, the majority are. Besides, the thread was
> about the necessity for social security.
Actually it was about Hawaii's healthcare system. You brought up SS as an
aside
>> You're drifting into nonsense... probably because you can't answer
>> my questions..
>
>
> It ain't on me, stevie; it's on your inability to
> comprehend the English language. You don't ask
> questions: you rant, then ignore the responses.
>
>
>>
>>> That's why they import all those illegal aliens; that's why they
>>> engineered this fiscal problem.
>>
>> they??? engineered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
>> hear...
>
>
> Of course they did. They paid millions in bonuses to
> people who lost their employers billions--clearly, in
> order to increase the debt load the American taxpayer
> had to pick up. The filthy rich pulled their money,
> parked it overseas to avoid taxes here at home. They
> haven't been investing in American businesses; instead,
> they have been creating jobs in China and India.
So who 'engineered' it? The politicians who taxed business so much it
moved overseas to escape them, and continued to spend more than they received
in taxes?
>>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>>> or stagnate while the costs of goods and services continue to rise.
>>
>> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
>> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
>> lower those costs..
>
>
> People have no choice; they withhold mortgage payments,
> etc, and buy the groceries (at inflated prices) to feed
> their hungry children.
>
>
>>
>>> You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass and learn to
>>> think for yourselves.
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>
> Fact.
>
Wow.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jim, you do realize that "paladin" is Milt Shook, don't you?
No. I was starting to get a sniff of recognition, but I didn't know who it
was. I don't really get involved in the personalities (and I use the term in
the loosest possible sense) of some of these people on Usenet, so I don't
recognize them or remember them when they reappear in what they think is a new
identity. I don't see Shook in my twit file, so I don't see any reason to add
this iteration yet. Hey, he might learn something sooner or later.
Jim Alder
news:vjlck5t9b533ucb4c...@4ax.com:
> It's Milt Shook He's become too embarrased to use his real name....
Okay. You only need to tell me once.
Jim Alder
news:r4WdnXybWbY...@giganews.com:
> For your information, this nation's tax structure was
> once based on and should be again based on an
> escalating tax scale.
What do you mean "should be again"? It still is! Are you unfamiliar with
the varied tax brackets?
What YOU should know before you defend it is that this is one of the
tenets of the Communist Manifesto.
Steve
wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>news:vjlck5t9b533ucb4c...@4ax.com:
>
>> It's Milt Shook He's become too embarrased to use his real name....
>
> Okay. You only need to tell me once.
Actually, I'm just making sure that everybody else knows... and
making sure that Shook knows he's been outed... he went to a lot of
work with this sock puppet.. spent money he doesn't have for a
giganews account.. I want to make sure he knows he wasted his money.
Jim Alder
news:blrck55d70rr8rnmn...@4ax.com:
Okay. I don't know why he's hiding. Doesn't he know that a rose by any
other name smells the same?
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
> news:vjlck5t9b533ucb4c...@4ax.com:
>
>> It's Milt Shook He's become too embarrased to use his real name....
>
> Okay. You only need to tell me once.
Don't know if Paladin is Milt or what, but it's obvious that Milt has
frightened the piss out of those two right wing cunts.
--
"Normandy beachhead participants did not know or guess that most of them
would die" - David Heil
Paladin
>>> was added in 1965 by the Social Security act of 1965,. Social Security was
>>> changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into
>>> the General Fund for additional congressional revenue (THE LOCKBOX IS IN
>>> PERIL)"
>>>
>>> You might also want to drop by Wikianswers and straighten them out,
> too.
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:When_was_social_security_put_into_the_genera
>>> l_fund
>>>
>>> "During the Vietnam War and the Johnson administration, legislation was
>>> amended so that these monies could be moved into the General Fund and used
> for
>>> anything Congress wanted to use them for."
>>>
>>> The folks at the Free Press could stand a talking to, also.
>>> http://www.free-press.biz/usa/ssi-trust-fund.htm
>>>
>>> Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust
>>> Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
>>>
>>> A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and
> Senate.
>> All that shit was ably refuted by Snopes. look it up.
>> at reputable sites.
>
> I just did. You mean liberal blogs? No, thanks. Snopes is a liberal couple
> with their own slant on things.
snopes is a factchecker. They debunk Liberal myths as
well as republican. Jim, you really aren't well informed.
>
>>>> by a change implemented at the
>>>> end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered
>>>> how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget
>>>> but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself:
>>>> Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and
>>>> other Federal programs that operate through trust funds
>>>> were counted officially in the budget. This was done
>>>> administratively by President Johnson. At the time
>>>> Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974
>>>> Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals
>>>> through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the
>>>> budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions
>>>> were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust
>>>> fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
>>>>
>>>> In response to this concern, a series of measures were
>>>> enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a
>>>> *more distinct part of the budget*. Meaning that
>>>> interest earned on social security funds is in fact
>>>> added to general funds rather than left in SS. Reagan did this.
>>> According to ....?
>> historical fact, back when you were still in diapers.
>
> I was wearing diapers in the Truman administration, elitist punk, long
> before your dad broke that condom.
I retire this year, dipshit.
Jimmie...Jim...Jimbo...Dim-o. Wasn't it you that
lectured me awhile ago about calling people names?
didn't you say it was silly? Apparenty yo ucan't take
it but you want to dish it out.
I told you, bucko, I'll be as civil with you as you are
to me.
>
>> I lived through REagan, and that wasn't easy.
>
> I'm sure it wasn't. I didn't enjoy living through Clinton and even less
> for Obama. I expect if I actually HATED the opposition like you do, it would
> be harder.
I think Reagan was a dupe his entire political career.
When his career was nothing, back when he was a
LIBERAL Democrat, GE got ahold of him, promised him
great things if he toed the line. He broke with the
Democrats, announced he was Republican, and weeks later
he became host of Death Valley Days, and when it ended,
he went into politics. He was a lousy actor but a
great mouthpiece for his controllers.
Nixon was a scumbag as a human being, but a fairly
good, bipartisan president. reagan gave great lip
service to the working class while sticking it up our
collective rear with everything he did. Reagan began
the decline of America.
Clinton reversed Reaganism's trickle down shit and
created the first American surplus since the good
George (Washington) was president. You might have done
badly under Clinton, you hate Democrats so--but the
country did great.
>
>>>>>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>>>>>> flabby asses.
>>
>>>>>>> Another Leftwinger who hates the rich guy that gave him a job all
> his
>>>>>>> life.
>>
>>>>>> I don't hate anyone but you pee-baggers.
>>
>>>>> "Teabagger" wasn't slimy enough for you, eh, hatemonger?
>>>> hey, tea-bagger was the name your *founder* gave
>>>> it--you know the guy: he was photographed holding a
>>>> sign calling Obama a "nigar." Dumb fuck you side can't spell a racist
>>>> epitaph and I'm slimy???
>>> Yes, you are and I don't know who the fuck you're talking about.
>>
>> Saw a clip of him today on CNN, holding his nigar sign.
>
> What part of "I don't know who the fuck you're talking about" eluded you?
It isn't important that you don't know: you should be
used to that, being so willfully ignorant.
>
>> He is credited with starting tea-baggers, long
>> before Dick Armey began throwing Richard Mellon
>> Scaife's money into it.
>
> Another spurious claim on a par with your accusation of me 'siding with' a
> racist. It's fun to make shit up to suit your own little hatefilled world,
> isn't it?
Photo Shows Top Tea Bagger Holding Sign with N-Word
(Which He Misspelled)
Jon Ponder | January 4, 2010
Dale Robertson, who claims to be the founder of the Tea
Bagger movement, holds sign that says, "Congress =
Slave Owners; Taxpayer = Niggar' In Houston in February
2009It’s going to be a lot harder for Tea Baggers to
claim they’re not racists now that a photo has emerged
of Dale Robertson, who calls himself the “president and
founder of the Tea Party,” holding a sign that
reads,”Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = Niggar.”
The photo was taken in Houston on Feb. 27, 2009.
Robertson is the owner and operator of the Tea Party
website: http://www.teaparty.org
Check it out for youself if you aren't too lazy:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/01/04/photo-shows-top-tea-bagger-holding-sign-with-n-word-which-he-misspelled/
you really are misinformed, Jimmie. We're roughly the
same age, so it may not be dementia on your part. I
suspect you've always been this stupid.
>
>>>>>> I accept that
>>>>>> some of the rich are greedy bastards who steal not only
>>>>>> wages from their employees but profits from their
>>>>>> mom-and-pop stockholders in the form of CEO
>>>>>> multi-million-dollar contracts and private planes. I
>>>>>> accept that they take advantage of laws that legalize
>>>>>> their theft (they're supposed to steal, it's in
>>>>>> corporate bylaws). I also accept it as the
>>>>>> responsibility of patriotic Americans to fight against their worst
> abuses
>>>>>> of their economic power.
>>
>>>>> Yeah, you got no issues.
>>>> I damn well do have issues. It's called belief in
>>>> government working to control the worst excesses of big business as well
> as
>>>> the crimes of individuals.
>>> Except it seems YOUR idea of the worst excesses is making a lot of
> money.
>> Yeah the filthy rich are doing swell.
>
> And you're not - boo fucking hoo.
Latest figures indicate that the wages of Americans
adjusted for inflation have actually decreased while
the incomes of the filthy rich have increased
substantially. You think that is right?
Get your head out of your ass, boy. With everything
you type you sound more and more like stevie. When did
you two marry?
>
>>>> Government regulations are usually a good thing;
>>> No, they aren't.
>> Childish repost
>
> You make claims with no validity and no proof. Why should I raise the bar?
Doofus, I have provided scads of proof; you've demanded
sites from me without providing anything but your
misinformed opinions.
Paladin
Simple, really. A job is announced, and the unemployed
line up around the block. Clearly, they want to work.
So, it's a buyers' market. IOW, a large labor pool
incentive's low wages for everyone.
>
>
>>>> That's why they import all those illegal
>>>> aliens; that's why they engineered this fiscal problem.
>>> they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
>>> hear...
>>
>> Of course they did. They paid millions in bonuses to
>> people who lost their employers billions-clearly, in
>> order to increase the debt load the American taxpayer
>> had to pick up.
>
> Bullshit... the American taxpayer only had to pick it up because
> Obama bailed them out.. ...and "they" had no reason to expect that to
> happen. IOW, your "clearly" is just another figment of your wild
> imagination.
Of course they knew.
Paulsen--Bush's man-- urged a bailout to avoid a
depression. The big investment banks knew without
doubt that they were in fact too big to be allowed to fail.
>
>> The filthy rich pulled their money,
>> parked it overseas to avoid taxes here at home. They
>> haven't been investing in American businesses; instead,
>> they have been creating jobs in China and India.
>
> <LOL> That makes it pretty hard to explain how American investments
> got so expensive, Dummy.
Steve, you're truly ignorant as your boyfriend jim.
The fat boys haven't lost a dime, doofus. It's the
small investors, and the pension funds that have lost
everything.
>
>>>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>>>> or stagnate while the costs of goods and services
>>>> continue to rise.
>>> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
>>> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
>>> lower those costs..
>>
>> People have no choice; they withhold mortgage payments,
>> etc, and buy the groceries (at inflated prices) to feed
>> their hungry children.
>
> Errrr, that doesn't answer the question... how does that make costs
> of goods and services rise?
Rising prices are the normal course of events. didn't
you realize that?
>
>>>> You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass
>>>> and learn to think for yourselves.
>>> Irony anyone?
>>
>> Fact.
>
> Your "facts" come sytraight out of your imagination..
My facts are provable, while your opinions derive
sytraight [sic] from your ass.
Paladin
> Paladin <"paladin 53"@giganews.com> wrote in
> news:89ednb4xael...@giganews.com:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good for business.
>>> <chuckle> Homeless people aren't in the "labor pool?" Why not? Don't
>>> they want to work?
>>
>> Actually, the majority are. Besides, the thread was
>> about the necessity for social security.
>
> Actually it was about Hawaii's healthcare system. You brought up SS as an
> aside
Actually, I did do that. But then you and your
suck-buddy stevie decided to demonstrate both your
ignorance and your incalcitrance by harping about
something you know nothing whatsoever about.
>
>>> You're drifting into nonsense... probably because you can't answer
>>> my questions..
>>
>> It ain't on me, stevie; it's on your inability to
>> comprehend the English language. You don't ask
>> questions: you rant, then ignore the responses.
>>
>>
>>>> That's why they import all those illegal aliens; that's why they
>>>> engineered this fiscal problem.
>>> they??? engineered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
>>> hear...
>>
>> Of course they did. They paid millions in bonuses to
>> people who lost their employers billions--clearly, in
>> order to increase the debt load the American taxpayer
>> had to pick up. The filthy rich pulled their money,
>> parked it overseas to avoid taxes here at home. They
>> haven't been investing in American businesses; instead,
>> they have been creating jobs in China and India.
>
> So who 'engineered' it? The politicians who taxed business so much it
> moved overseas to escape them, and continued to spend more than they received
> in taxes?
horseshit. Taxes had nothing to do with the flight of
American manufacturing. It was about profit. And
Republican tax reforms enabled --are still
enabling--the flight.
Paladin
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Paladin <"paladin53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing, medicine,
>>>>>>> electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>>>>> Who says they "should have been provided retirement benefits from
>>>>>> their jobs?"
>>>>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>>>>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man applies for
>>>>> the job.
>>>> Because you say so, huh?
>>>
>>> Because taking care of the people who performed the
>> <chuckle> Whatever happen to the adult concept of taking care of one's
>> own self.
>
> What kind of 'great society' would THAT be?
The kind enjoyed by Scandinavian nations? the kind we
had before Reagan?
>
>>> labor that made you wealthy is the right, moral thing to do.
>> Because you say so, huh?
>
> That would seem to be his basis for everything he writes here. He says so,
> so it is so. Maybe a thunderclap or two would help his case?
You post a lot of asinine opinion and ignore fact that
refutes them. "Ignore" leads to ignorance, doofus.
I suppose about here you will again lecture me about
calling people names, huh? You like to dish it out but
you're too pussy to take it.
>
>>>>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do.
>>>> Bullshit! That's only a smart thing to offer employees if you're
>>>> looking for responsible employees who are looking ahead to their
>>>> future..
>>>
>>> when people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
>>> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>>> planning for the future. Day to day survival for the working class is
>>> damned well hard enough.
>> It probably would have been a good idea for those people who are being
>> paid "subsistence wages" to have better prepared, and maybe they
>> should have delayed producing children until they were prepared.
>
> I tried that approach already. I was accused of being perfect. So far
> that's the only thing he's gotten right! <g> I asked him why people who made
> the right choices should finance those who didn't, but I don't have hopes of a
> real answer.
That's the basis upon which the United States was
formed--it's even in the Constitution. You know, "for
the common good." You have read it, haven't you?
>
>> The
>> only reason most of those people are being paid "subsistence wages" is
>> because there are so many of them that fall in that unprepared
>> category.
>>
>>>>> Imagine
>>>>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>>>>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>>>>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in trash bins for
>>>>> rotting food.
>>>> Imagine people who are responsible enough to put away money for their
>>>> old age...
>>>
>>> When people are paid subsistence wages, doofus, there's
>>> no money left over at the end of a paycheck for
>>> planning for the future. Day to day survival for the
>>> working class is damned well hard enough.
>
> Blind and monotonous repetition. I suspect this is a guy I killfiled not
> long ago. Can't remember who it was.
Fact is often unpleasant for you self-centered
Pee-Baggers, isn't it.
>
>>>> Imagine them doing that without having a nanny government forcing them
>>>> to do it.
>>>>
>>>>> Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons to wipe their
>>>>> flabby asses.
>>>> <chuckle> so how exactly does a person who can't even hold down a job
>>>> hold down wages and "enable" rich people?
>>>
>>> nitwit, anything that enlarges the labor pool is good for business.
>> <chuckle> Homeless people aren't in the "labor pool?" Why not? Don't
>> they want to work?
>>
>> You're drifting into nonsense... probably because you can't answer
>> my questions..
>
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
you and stevie make a swell team. Do you blow him
while he types and vice-versa? What, are you two girls
afraid to go against anyone by yourself?
>
>>> That's why they import all those illegal aliens; that's why they
>>> engineered this fiscal problem.
>> they??? enginered???? Do elaborate on that.. I can't wait to
>> hear...
>
> Me, too! Is he saying that Barney Frank and the other Democrats who
> downplayed the Fanny May/Freddie Mac problems Bush warned about did it on
> purpose for some evil intent?
The debate has been held about what caused the
meltdown. And your side lost. Weren't you paying
attention?
>
>>> When millions are out of work, wages either come down
>>> or stagnate while the costs of goods and services continue to rise.
>> So how do all these people being out of work make costs of goods and
>> services continue to rise when the wages going down would actually
>> lower those costs..
>>
>>> You Pee-Baggers should pull your head out of Beck's ass and learn to
>>> think for yourselves.
>> Irony anyone?
>
> By the buttload.
>
Grin. You're getting a mouthful from Beck, eh?
Paladin
you flatter me.
Paladin
I am kicking your silly ass, boy. I don't need Milt's
help.
You should be careful, sonny. since you and your
boyfriend --double teaming-- can't handle this one lone
Liberal, you should be leery of inviting Milt in. He's
much more eloquent than I am.
Paladin
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
> news:blrck55d70rr8rnmn...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:14:33 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>> news:vjlck5t9b533ucb4c...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> It's Milt Shook He's become too embarrased to use his real name....
>>> Okay. You only need to tell me once.
>> Actually, I'm just making sure that everybody else knows... and
>> making sure that Shook knows he's been outed... he went to a lot of
>> work with this sock puppet.. spent money he doesn't have for a
>> giganews account.. I want to make sure he knows he wasted his money.
>
> Okay. I don't know why he's hiding. Doesn't he know that a rose by any
> other name smells the same?
>
>
How can you smell anything with your head so far up
Beck's ass? When he lets a wet one rip, do you inhale
and hold your breath, then share it with stevie later?
william mosco
Paladin wrote:
> That I proudly declare that I am a Liberal illustrates my above
average intellect.
An incredibly stupid statement.
Paladin
It's true that all the best comedians ridicule you
Pee-Baggers.
>
> But thank you for explaining why Ted Kennedy was buried in a pauper's
> grave. Why Al Gore and John Kerry live in shacks and carpool in a Prius.
silly boy. Good people like the above prove that one
doesn't have to be a stingy, greedy, self-centered
asshole in order to be rich.
Ever wonder why so many actors are Liberals? With few
exceptions they came from the working class, and though
they are now wealthier than god, they remember their
roots, they realize just how fortunate they've been.
>
>>>>>> And then there's the fact that
>>>>>> if a worker dies or is crippled shortly after starting
>>>>>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he must still eat, his
>>>>>> family must be provided for.
>>>>> Perhaps it is not wise to start a family shortly after starting one's
>>>>> working life? everyone isn't as perfect as you.
>>> Preaching to the choir, bub. If only...
>>
>> Certainly preaching to the choir. nice of you to admit
>> your imperfections.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Want to "fix" social security? Simple to do. Just
>>>>>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>>>>>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether from dividends,
>>>>>> stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses. Yeah! "Fix it" by making it
>>>>>> even LESS fair.
>>>
>>>> Fair? It's fair to you that one man is permitted to
>>>> accumulate enough wealth to give half a million dollars
>>>> to every family in the US while a significant number of those families
>>>> starve?
>>> Permitted?! LOL! You voted for Obama BECAUSE he's a Marxist, didn't
> you?
>>
>> Oh, I wish he were a Liberal. Centrist is another term
>> for easily scared or bought off.
>
> I wish he was just a Liberal, too. But you didn't answer my question. No
> one here is talking about a centrist.
Dipshit, you mentioned Obama. Obama is clearly a
centrist. As are 90% of elected Democrats.
You people are so far out in right field you can't
recognize the center when it lands on your doorstep
begging for repuglican handouts.
>
>>> And to answer your question, yes, I think it's fair that everyone gets
> the
>>> same opportunity to make that kind of money. Some make it, some don't. I do
>>> NOT think it's fair for those who are industrious and devote their lives to
>>> the almighty dollar should have to foot the bill for people who skate
> through
>>> life knocking up their high school girlfriend and making whatever other
>>> mistakes you made. Life is full of choices.
>>
>> True. You choose to be willfully ignorant.
>
> LOL!
>
Your hypocrisy is duly noted.
Paladin
you can't handle me, doofus. Why would you want to
call Milt into this?
Paladin
> Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jim, you do realize that "paladin" is Milt Shook, don't you?
>
> No. I was starting to get a sniff of recognition, but I didn't know who it
> was. I don't really get involved in the personalities (and I use the term in
> the loosest possible sense) of some of these people on Usenet, so I don't
> recognize them or remember them when they reappear in what they think is a new
> identity. I don't see Shook in my twit file, so I don't see any reason to add
> this iteration yet. Hey, he might learn something sooner or later.
>
you're a fucking hypocrite, Jimmie. You whine that
I've called you evil names. Then you proceed in the
same post you smear someone else who called you out on
your obvious ignorance.
Paladin
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:06:06 -0600, Paladin <"paladin>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:09:28 -0600, Paladin <"paladin>>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:02:54 -0600, Paladin <"paladin
>>>>>>> 53"@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Millions of Americans who should have been provided
>>>>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs did not; all they
>>>>>>>> have is a lowly SS check every month for food, housing,
>>>>>>>> medicine, electricity, home heating, water--ad infinitum.
>>>>>>> Who says they "should have been provided
>>>>>>> retirement benefits from their jobs?"
>>>>>> When a man gives 30 years to a profitable business, he
>>>>>> should not be shoved out the door when a younger man
>>>>>> applies for the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, it's the smart thing to do. Imagine
>>>>>> if you will a US without social security...imagine tens
>>>>>> of millions of older people and crippled younger people
>>>>>> living on the streets, begging scraps, scrounging in
>>>>>> trash bins for rotting food. Mexico, Bolivia, Africa,
>>>>>> Saudi Arabia have lots of beggars. The homeless hold
>>>>>> wages down and enable the filthy rich to buy an eighth
>>>>>> or ninth 100-room mansion and hire an extra ten peons
>>>>>> to wipe their flabby asses.
>>>>> The truth is, Social Security is a bad investment. On average, 2/3 of
>>>>> the money you give to Social Security will not be returned to you.
>>>> Know why that is? The wealthy don't pay into social
>>>> security--they pay only from income and only on the
>>>> first $200k while everyone else pays the percentage on
>>>> his working life (before he fully pays into SS), he
>>>> must still eat, his family must be provided for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> remove the upper limit on deductions, and make the rich
>>>> pay the percentage on every dime they earn, whether
>>> >from dividends, stock sales, house sales, or fat bonuses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Leftist's "solutions" always involve transfer of wealth.
>>
>> For you information, this nation's tax structure was
>> escalating tax scale.
>
your ignorance of this nation is astonishing.
>
>> Kinda like in public utilities
>> and fat government contracts. They're on a cost-plus
>> basis. Our tax system was designed to tax only the
>> excess earnings above the cost of living. If a family
>> of four needs x dollars just to provide basic needs,
>> earnings above that are and should be taxable.
>
> Not to fund their retirement..
>> The
>> more excess earnings, the more you should pay in taxes.
>> But you republicans seem to feel that what is
>> considered basic needs ought to be higher for the
>> rich--after all, they have all those million-dollar
>> homes and million-dollar yachts and gardeners and
>> household servants to support-- while the working class
>> has only to pay mortgage or rent on one residence,
>> groceries and utilities and personal insurance and a
>> car payment and clothing and--well, you get the idea,
>> don't you? In my opinion the standard deduction should
>> be raised significantly and the top tax rate should be
>> raised exponentially. When JFK was elected the top tax
>> rate was, what, 98%? Didn't see any millionaires in
>> the bread lines in the 1960s, dude.
>
> Don't call me "dude" Milt. I'm not a dude.
Sorry, dudette.
>
> They were doing
>> fine with a high tax rate--and the rest of us was doing
>> fine, too. Back then, the average CEO earned about 17
>> times what his average employee earned. Today, he
>> earns 517 times what his workers earn.
>
> Total bullshit.. Damned few CEOs make that much...
Maybe so. But if it is, that merely means that some
CEOs earn maybe 2000 times what the average worker
earns. Because that 517% figure is accurate. look it
up, doofus, and prove me wrong.
In 2004, the average American CEO was paid $10 million,
as reported in The Wall Street Journal’s annual
analysis of the 350 largest public companies (WSJ
2005). This is a huge 14.5 percent increase over the
annual CEO compensation in 2003. American CEO pay
currently dwarfs foreign CEO pay. German CEOs make 13
times more than the average German manufacturing
employee an in Japan, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is
just 11-to-1 (Greenfield 1999).
American CEO averaged $10,000,000 in 2004--and it has
increased by a huge percentage every year since.
Let's see, $10,000,000 divided by 365 days
equals--gasp!-- $27,397 per day! And that was in 2004.
>
>> Force trade unions to accept pay cuts and give
>> million-dollar bonuses to the executives who forced the
>> cuts? Can't you find it in your soul to admit the
>> unfairness of wage inequities?
>
> You know, even I think that a few CEOs of big companies that are near
> belly-up make way too much. Hell look at the prick, Imelt, at GE, for
> instance.. He took home 14 million in 2007 and drove the company to
> near bankrupcy, but still got nearly 6 million in 2008...
michelle bachmann drove her company into bankruptcy in
one year but went to court crying that she had earned
her "retirement" benefits of more than $100 million.
>
> ...but the fact is that if you took all the money he makes and divied
> it out evenly to all 323,000 of GE's employees it would amount to 43
> bucks for the year 2007 and 16 bucks for 2008.
So? I'm sure they could have used the $43 bucks to buy
a tank of gas. Instead, they were forced to take
paycuts. I agree with you that that is just not fair.
>
> The hard cold fact is, Milt, that when you people whine about CEOs
> salaries, it's got noting to do with workers not gwtting paid enough
> and everything to do with class envy.
You're a stupid shit.
>
>> When Reagan was elected, this country enjoyed a huge
>> trade surplus, the highest standard of living on Earth,
>> a high per capita income compared to that of the rest
>> of the world, the healthiest people on Earth. About
>> two years into Reagan, our trade balance and average
>> standard of living began sliding into the negative as
>> Reagan lifted tariffs and cut taxes on the rich while
>> raising them on the middle class.