More Republican Party hilarity...

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Obama's plan really worked well.

It's early yet and I believe the right will go after illegal immigrants. Arizona wants to, but Holder stopped that in it's tracks. So I'll return that same question back at you, what are the democrats going to do?

The liberals will plug their ears, cover their eyes and post in BIG PINK LETTERS

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Obama's plan really worked well.

It's early yet and I believe the right will go after illegal immigrants. Arizona wants to, but Holder stopped that in it's tracks. So I'll return that same question back at you, what are the democrats going to do?

They are going to try and tackle the whole problem and not just more law enforcement resources.

And as the story pointed out the Obama Administration is deporting record numbers of illegal aliens.

So what's your solution Ace?

And as big as I posted it you and tenguy still can't see jobs can you?

What should we do with the people and businesses that employ illegal aliens Ace. Because if people and businesses in the US did not give them jobs they would not be coming here in the first place.

And lets put this in perspective. See if I got selling drugs out of my car they would not only throw me in jail they would seize my car and all my money. If I also had drugs out of my house they could seize my house.

So what happens when a business or person gets caught employing illegal aliens? Usually not a fucking thing and they're the ones making money off something illegal just like the drug dealers are.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3746782]

They are going to try and tackle the whole problem and not just more law enforcement resources.

Are you suggesting 'amnesty' or are you just double talking ?

And as the story pointed out the Obama Administration is deporting record numbers of illegal aliens.

Did I say anything different?

So what's your solution Ace?

Enforce the federal laws that have ALREADY in place, and if more federal or state laws need to be passed on illegal immigration, then it needs to be done.

And as big as I posted it you and tenguy still can't see jobs can you?

No, no jobs yet,,new unemployment claims are higher than predicted , No ,NO JOBS YET.

What should we do with the people and businesses that employ illegal aliens Ace. Because if people and businesses in the US did not give them jobs they would not be coming here in the first place.

ENFORCED Federal and State fines. A total fine of10% of gross income per illegal immigrant found in their company that are being PAID.

And lets put this in perspective. See if I got selling drugs out of my car they would not only throw me in jail they would seize my car and all my money. If I also had drugs out of my house they could seize my house.

What's wrong with that?

So what happens when a business or person gets caught employing illegal aliens? Usually not a fucking thing and they're the ones making money off something illegal just like the drug dealers are.

Dont you start that shit, you have the upmost faith in our federal government, according to you , we dont have enough federal government. The laws are there, the government has the blind eye.

[stumbler]

......... we newly elected Republicans and Tea Party have such big plans for America we don't even want to tell the American people what they really are.

John Boehner visited CNN's "Parker Spitzer" Wednesday to discuss Obama's State of the Union address, and he didn't hesitate to cut right to the chase.


Kathleen Parker opened their conversation by asking, "The president kept saying this is a 'Sputnik moment' ... what kind of moment would you say we're in right now?"


"Well, if you really want to talk about what the 'Sputnik moment' is," he replied, "it's the fact that we're broke. And American people know we're broke."


Boehner continued by suggesting both parties come together to discuss "an array of solutions" with the American people, but failed to respond when pressed about whether cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should be part of the fix.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_814662.html

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

......... we newly elected Republicans and Tea Party have such big plans for America we don't even want to tell the American people what they really are.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_814662.html

What do you think, Mr. Liberal? Should Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security be left as they are with no changes?

What do you think about the latest projection that SS will be broke by 2037?

How would you fix it?

Do you have an answer right now or would you like to review what suggestions you colleagues might have and formulate an answer then?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

]Are you suggesting 'amnesty' or are you just double talking ?

Another amnesty wouldn't bother me but I think the path ways through military service or college education is a lot better idea.

Same way with the "anchor baby" problem as some of you guys call it. Hell, we can amend the constitution if enough people want to and that might be something we really want to consider. But that's after the fact that there's a lot of children of illegal aliens who are actually legal US citizens living here right now.

So let me ask you a couple a questions, Ace. How many people are we actually talking about? And what do you propose we do with them including the children of illegal immigrants that were born here and are US citizens?

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Did I say anything different?

Yes, you're trying to imply at least that President Obama is not doing anything about illegal immigration when he's actually poured more resources into than President Bush and the Republicans.

You like to ignore the fact it was the republicans who cut funding to fight illegal immigration by 90% and opened the flood gates. And corporate America who welcomed them with open arms and press 2 for Spanish.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Enforce the federal laws that have ALREADY in place, and if more federal or state laws need to be passed on illegal immigration, then it needs to be done.

See how you contradict yourself though? When confronted with the fact that the Obama administration is enforcing the laws enough to result in record deportations you begrudgingly admit that.

But here you're screaming enforce the federal laws again.

And where's your brainwashed talking point "secure the borders" Ace? We're not doing that either are we in your opinion.

Oh no it takes a tough on immigration president like George Bush and the penny pinching conservatives in congress to "secure the border."

June 1, 2008

A 28-mile prototype virtual fence built by Boeing Co. and designed to thwart illegal immigration along the Mexico/U.S. border hasn't met border control agents' needs, the Government Accountability Office reported. However, the federal government has no plans to end the program as recently reported by the mainstream press, said Laura Keehner, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security.


“It would be wrong to conclude that the federal government is scrapping the virtual fence,” she said.


The project uses a series of electronic wireless devices to detect movement along the 28-mile stretch near Tucson, Ariz. The long-term goal is to secure the nation's northern and southern borders over the next five to six years using a mix of technology, infrastructure and human resources. The GAO said the project's main shortcoming right now is the lapse time between the electronic detection of individuals illegally crossing the border and the data reaching handheld devices and mission-control systems used by border-control personnel.


Wayne Esser, Boeing's director of strategic development for the Secure Border Initiative program that developed the fence, said the $20 million prototype uses off-the-shelf hardware and software to track illegal immigration activities. It currently consists of communication technologies that include sensors and radar systems housed on a series of mobile towers. The data then are transmitted over a restricted wireless network to border-control agents, he said.

http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_s..._dhs_no_plans/


So more than $1 BILLION later:


U.S.-Mexico border fence scrapped


By SUZANNE GAMBOA Associated Press
Published: 1/15/2011 2:33 AM
Last Modified: 1/15/2011 6:58 AM

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Friday ended a high-tech southern border fence scheme that cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion but did little to improve security. Congress ordered the high-tech fence in 2006 amid a clamor over the porous border, but the project yielded only 53 miles of protection.


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the lesson of the multimillion-dollar program is there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution for border security.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...2_WASHIN981357

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

No, no jobs yet,,new unemployment claims are higher than predicted , No ,NO JOBS YET.

Yeah but now its you guy's turn to try and create them.

But that does not have anything to do with US businesses, people and corporations giving jobs to illegal aliens which is why illegal aliens REALLY come here in the first place.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

ENFORCED Federal and State fines. A total fine of10% of gross income per illegal immigrant found in their company that are being PAID.

So if a business, or corporation gets caught employing 10 illegal aliens they lose 100% of their gross income? I could go for that.

But what about the actual people who broke the law. The people and business owners who knowingly employed illegal aliens? Oh I know, the get off free to do it again and again. Same with individuals who employ illegal aliens. So once again nothing happens to the people who actually give illegal aliens jobs. That's what I thought.

Tackle part of the problem and let the cause of it go free.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

What's wrong with that?

Let me ask you a question Ace. Which in YOUR view is the more dangerous and damaging problem right now: Drug use or Illegal Immigration?

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Dont you start that shit, you have the upmost faith in our federal government, according to you , we dont have enough federal government. The laws are there, the government has the blind eye.

I actually think our federal government does an amazing job of keeping us safe and prosperous as far as humanly possible and that's a long ways from perfection. But its the best we got in a nations of 310 million.

And will point out again it was actually the cutting back on that very same federal government that opened the flood gates of illegal immigrants flocking to the US for the jobs that corporate America provided for them and profited from.

That's was a conservative/Republican decision to not enforce illegal immigration laws or even make efforts to stop it because a cheap illegal workforce was good for profits.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I actually think our federal government does an amazing job of keeping us safe and prosperous as far as humanly possible and that's a long ways from perfection. But its the best we got in a nations of 310 million.

And will point out again it was actually the cutting back on that very same federal government that opened the flood gates of illegal immigrants flocking to the US for the jobs that corporate America provided for them and profited from.

That's was a conservative/Republican decision to not enforce illegal immigration laws or even make efforts to stop it because a cheap illegal workforce was good for profits.

What caused the flood of illegals? How about a decision not to deport the ones who were here, talk about a shining beacon, when that decision was made it was head for el Norte.

Since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Congress has passed seven amnesties:

1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for over 2.7 million illegal aliens

2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994

4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America

5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens

7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens
http://www.endillegalimmigration.com...US/index.shtml

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Are you suggesting 'amnesty' or are you just double talking ?

Did I say anything different?

Enforce the federal laws that have ALREADY in place, and if more federal or state laws need to be passed on illegal immigration, then it needs to be done.

No, no jobs yet,,new unemployment claims are higher than predicted , No ,NO JOBS YET.

ENFORCED Federal and State fines. A total fine of10% of gross income per illegal immigrant found in their company that are being PAID.

What's wrong with that?

Dont you start that shit, you have the upmost faith in our federal government, according to you , we dont have enough federal government. The laws are there, the government has the blind eye.

One more time just to reinforce the point that saying the federal government is not doing anything about illegal immigration or securing our borders is bullshit right wing propaganda.

WASHINGTON -- As politicians call for more immigration enforcement and border security, a report released Wednesday found that the Obama administration is already focusing its efforts on immigration at the expense of other federal law-enforcement efforts.



Despite across-the-board staffing increases in federal law enforcement, only immigration enforcement -- particularly along the United States-Mexico border -- has increased substantially over the past two years, while other federal prosecutions in most of the country fell. Prosecutions for non-immigration felonies in non-border areas shrunk by 6 percent, according to government data analyzed by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.



At the same time, the Obama administration made an unprecedented effort to curb illegal immigration, sending record levels of money and troops to the border and more than doubling petty immigration enforcement in southwestern districts.


Democrats in Congress assisted with the effort, approving hundreds of millions of dollars in border-security funding increases in hopes of winning Republican support for bills that would allow some of the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants already living in the United States to earn legal status. Substantial Republican support never materialized, however, and the legal-status legislation failed.



Meanwhile, the government deported almost 393,000 people in 2010, at a cost of about $5 billion -- nearly 100,000 more people than the George W. Bush administration deported in 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_817323.html

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

What do you think, Mr. Liberal? Should Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security be left as they are with no changes?

What do you think about the latest projection that SS will be broke by 2037?

How would you fix it?

Do you have an answer right now or would you like to review what suggestions you colleagues might have and formulate an answer then?

The fact you have repeatedly ignored this simple solution is a testament to just how brainwashed you are about this issue. All you can do is believe your own bullshit.

Social Security Easy to Fix: Remove the Cap

No Crisis: The first thing to understand about Social Security is that there is no crisis, no need to do much of anything at all. On one hand, the economic assumptions used to promote a "crisis" in social security are just too pessimistic. Read this EPI brief.



Beyond the regular numbers, the general idea of crisis was always based on the idea of the population getting old and there not being enough workers to continue paying into the system. Increasing immigration is solving that problem as well.



A Fair Solution: But if any "solution" is needed, the simplest is the fairest. Currently, while a minimum wage worker pays 6.2% of his income into the social security trust fund -- $12.4% if you include the matching employers portion -- a CEO paid a $1 million dollars pays only 1% of his salary into the system. And Bill Gates pays nothing into the system from his billions in stock income.



This all stems from the fact that wage income above a certain level -- $87,000 per year in 2003 -- is completely untaxed by social security. Eliminating this so-called "cap" would raise plenty of income to help out the system. Only 83% of all wages paid are subject to social security taxes, so this would increase annual social security revenues 20%, or roughly $100 billion per year, plenty



This is hardly a radical idea-- the "cap" used to apply to the payroll taxes funding Medicare, but the 1993 tax bill removed the cap and now every dollar of wage income is taxed to help fund the Medicare system. There's no reason not to do the same for social security.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001278.shtml

[stumbler]

Hey Ace, tenguy and the rest of you conservative/Republican/Tea Bagger why don't you explain to me why with all the problems facing our country right now the GOP is busy trying to re-define "rape"? How many jobs is that gong to create?

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on Monday blasted a GOP-sponsored piece of legislation designed to slash abortion access, eliminate federal abortion funding in all forms, and potentially change the definition of rape, as "a violent act against women."


In an interview with Raw Story, Wasserman Schultz called the bill, which controversially includes language to change the instances of so-called "rape" in which women can receive abortions, "absolutely outrageous."
As HuffPost's Jason Linkins reported Monday:

What's off the table? Well, if you are a woman coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad! Also, if you are a young child, statutory rape is off the table, too, unless incest is involved. (The incest exception lapses for adults, crazily.)

Wasserman Schultz, a staunch pro-choice advocate, told Raw Story that the potential result of the legislation was unconscionable:


"It really is -- to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," Wasserman Schultz said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_817358.html

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Are you suggesting 'amnesty' or are you just double talking ?

Did I say anything different?

Enforce the federal laws that have ALREADY in place, and if more federal or state laws need to be passed on illegal immigration, then it needs to be done.

No, no jobs yet,,new unemployment claims are higher than predicted , No ,NO JOBS YET.

ENFORCED Federal and State fines. A total fine of10% of gross income per illegal immigrant found in their company that are being PAID.

What's wrong with that?

Dont you start that shit, you have the upmost faith in our federal government, according to you , we dont have enough federal government. The laws are there, the government has the blind eye.

Don't kid yourself, Ace. The powers that be in the Republican Party have no intention of curtailing the flow of illegal immigration. It would be bad for business.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Don't kid yourself, Ace. The powers that be in the Republican Party have no intention of curtailing the flow of illegal immigration. It would be bad for business.

And something I never thought of; immigration, illegal or legal has changed our demographics to the point of help balancing the people paying into social security with the number of people retiring.

No wonder the GOP wants to deport them all. Its screwing up their plans to loot the social security trust-fund.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

The fact you have repeatedly ignored this simple solution is a testament to just how brainwashed you are about this issue. All you can do is believe your own bullshit.

If you think that is the solution to all of the SS and Medicare future funding problems, why hasn't it been done?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And something I never thought of; immigration, illegal or legal has changed our demographics to the point of help balancing the people paying into social security with the number of people retiring.

No wonder the GOP wants to deport them all. Its screwing up their plans to loot the social security trust-fund.

Talk about pure unadulterated bullshit, you are spewing some heady shit tonight Stumbles.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

If you think that is the solution to all of the SS and Medicare future funding problems, why hasn't it been done?

But that's not what you asked is it you phony old fart?

No what you asked is this ...........

Originally Posted by tenguy

What do you think, Mr. Liberal? Should Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security be left as they are with no changes?

What do you think about the latest projection that SS will be broke by 2037?

How would you fix it?

Do you have an answer right now or would you like to review what suggestions you colleagues might have and formulate an answer then?

So now as usual its time to change the subject isn't it.

But to play your game the reason we haven't done this is because it conflicts with the conservative/Republican/Tea Bagger desire to loot and privatize social security.

And because there are a lot more pressing problems facing this nation than some hyped up chicken little right wing noise machine hysteria.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Talk about pure unadulterated bullshit, you are spewing some heady shit tonight Stumbles.

Crist says he thinks one way to keep Social Security solvent is by having people currently working in the country illegally earn citizenship and pay payroll taxes, which in turn would fund future Social Security benefits.

And Reich, who now teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, also pointed to immigration as a way to solve problems funding Social Security. He wrote a blog for the Christian Science Monitor in April 2010 entitled "Immigration: Could it solve Social Security, Medicare woes?"

"The biggest reason Social Security is in trouble, and Medicare as well, is because America is aging so fast," Reich wrote. "It's not just that so many boomers are retiring. It’s also that seniors are living longer. And families are having fewer children. Add it all up and the number of people who are working relative to the number who are retired keeps shrinking.

"Forty years ago there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are three. Within a couple of decades, there will be only two workers per retiree. There's no way just two workers will be able or willing to pay enough payroll taxes to keep benefits flowing to every retiree.

"This is where immigration comes in. Most immigrants are young because the impoverished countries they come from are demographically the opposite of rich countries. Rather than aging populations, their populations are bursting with young people. Yes, I know: There aren't enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be. Take a long-term view and most new immigrants to the U.S. will be working for many decades.

http://politifact.com/florida/statem...an-embraced-f/

[BigTrobbing]

If you want all the illegals out of America (and I know I do let them come here the right way) just cut them off. Cut them off education medical and welfare.

And so we do not break up family's rescind all the births to illegals so they can become what their parents are.

It is time they left and we worked on America, those who hate her can also leave I could give a rats ass what they think.

[BigTrobbing]

Originally Posted by stumbler

But that's not what you asked is it you phony old fart?

No what you asked is this ...........



So now as usual its time to change the subject isn't it.

But to play your game the reason we haven't done this is because it conflicts with the conservative/Republican/Tea Bagger desire to loot and privatize social security.

And because there are a lot more pressing problems facing this nation than some hyped up chicken little right wing noise machine hysteria.

I would have to say that if it was privatize SS it could be no worse then letting the government looking after it.

It has been looted by both parties and all that is left is and IOU, and that would be as good as the government. And they are broke.

And you have to stop with the hate (Tea Bagger)


This whole SS is nothing more then a ponzi scheme and if I remember correctly they just put a guy in jail for that (mayloft or something like that)

It seems that the progressives love to have the government take care of them so here is a solution. Progressives take NY, Calif, FL, IL and we will give you one or two more states. You live off the government tit and see how you go. Now you cannot go to the other states and try and suck off of us and lets see how it goes.

Wait we already see how it works those are the states that are in up to their eyeballs LOL I get a kick out of IL they want to spend some more LOL This is gonna be great. And Calif wants to tax the hell out of people. That will be real great. Well time for some popcorn and watch the show.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

http://politifact.com/florida/statem...an-embraced-f/

You are quoting the wrong people Stumbles, what do CSM and Reich have to do with it?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

I would have to say that if it was privatize SS it could be no worse then letting the government looking after it.

It has been looted by both parties and all that is left is and IOU, and that would be as good as the government. And they are broke.

And you have to stop with the hate (Tea Bagger)


This whole SS is nothing more then a ponzi scheme and if I remember correctly they just put a guy in jail for that (mayloft or something like that)

It seems that the progressives love to have the government take care of them so here is a solution. Progressives take NY, Calif, FL, IL and we will give you one or two more states. You live off the government tit and see how you go. Now you cannot go to the other states and try and suck off of us and lets see how it goes.

Wait we already see how it works those are the states that are in up to their eyeballs LOL I get a kick out of IL they want to spend some more LOL This is gonna be great. And Calif wants to tax the hell out of people. That will be real great. Well time for some popcorn and watch the show.

First you would not last a month without our government.

Second, how many people in this country would favor doing away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicade. I bet you can't find a majority of the people in the state you're in. And I know only a fraction would approve it in the state I'm in and its one of the most conservative in the nation.

Third, social security and the other programs are not even in real trouble yet and and when push comes to shove no one in this nation I know is willing to start watching people starve and die in the streets.

So all this bullshit is the same tiny minority that see social security as the only government program they have not had a chance to raid yet.

Finally who did we just bail out to the tune of more than $13 TRILLION DOLLARS. Was that our government or was that the same private sector you think could handle a trust-fund?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

I would have to say that if it was privatize SS it could be no worse then letting the government looking after it.

It has been looted by both parties and all that is left is and IOU, and that would be as good as the government. And they are broke.

And you have to stop with the hate (Tea Bagger)


This whole SS is nothing more then a ponzi scheme and if I remember correctly they just put a guy in jail for that (mayloft or something like that)

It seems that the progressives love to have the government take care of them so here is a solution. Progressives take NY, Calif, FL, IL and we will give you one or two more states. You live off the government tit and see how you go. Now you cannot go to the other states and try and suck off of us and lets see how it goes.

Wait we already see how it works those are the states that are in up to their eyeballs LOL I get a kick out of IL they want to spend some more LOL This is gonna be great. And Calif wants to tax the hell out of people. That will be real great. Well time for some popcorn and watch the show.

You see that, tenguy? I told you conservatives want to get rid of Social Security...

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

If you think that is the solution to all of the SS and Medicare future funding problems, why hasn't it been done?

Because, obviously, the Republican Party opposes any attempts to tax people in the top tax brackets. And because the Republican Party has no interest in solving the Social Security problem in a way that leaves the program intact.

Medicare is an entirely different matter.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Because, obviously, the Republican Party opposes any attempts to tax people in the top tax brackets. And because the Republican Party has no interest in solving the Social Security problem in a way that leaves the program intact.

Medicare is an entirely different matter.

Opps, I bet I included Medicare in my argument. I'll take this as a strong hint I better check.

But it always hurts so good coming from you.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You see that, tenguy? I told you conservatives want to get rid of Social Security...

Yeah but you don't see one of them with balls enough to step up to a microphone and announce that to the American public.

And for really really good reasons to. They don't fucking dare.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You see that, tenguy? I told you conservatives want to get rid of Social Security...

IT WONT HAPPEN.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3767498]

Because, obviously, the Republican Party opposes any attempts to tax people in the top tax brackets. And because the Republican Party has no interest in solving the Social Security problem in a way that leaves the program intact.

And what are the democrats talking about for a solution to solve the Social Security and other entitlement programs that will soon be in default???..What are they again??

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

And what are the democrats talking about for a solution to solve the Social Security and other entitlement programs that will soon be in default???..What are they again??

The most often cited progressive solution to Social Security is to raise the income cap. That alone would fix SS for the foreseeable future.

And that phrase "soon be in default" is typical conservative demagoguery and fear-mongering. It is woefully inconsistent with the facts.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Yeah but you don't see one of them with balls enough to step up to a microphone and announce that to the American public.

And for really really good reasons to. They don't fucking dare.

They can't even tell their own camp-followers the truth about what their ultimate goals are.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They can't even tell their own camp-followers the truth about what their ultimate goals are.

LOL, now that is really good comedy. (I rarely use that acronym)

From bashing the right to building new conspiracy theories, you slay me Kimi.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3767595]

The most often cited progressive solution to Social Security is to raise the income cap.That alone would fix SS for the foreseeable future.

So,, raising taxes is their solution, not even remotely surprised.

And that phrase "soon be in default" is typical conservative demagoguery and fear-mongering. It is woefully inconsistent with the facts.

So you believe that there IS NOT a problem??.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They can't even tell their own camp-followers the truth about what their ultimate goals are.

And you know for very good reasons. The vast majority of people in this nation think social security is a damn good deal. I know when I was paying into it I didn't mind at all because I knew it was going to the people who had built this country before me. Plus after president Johnson they weren't freezing to death or eating pet food.

I felt better about that.

Now that I've paid into it all my life and its just about the only thing I've got it looks like a damn good deal to me. I don't see anyone in their right mind wanting to change that. Especially after all the good its done for all these decades.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

So,, raising taxes is their solution, not even remotely surprised.

So you believe that there IS NOT a problem??.

I've said it before and now I have to say it again Ace. Only a fucking fool would believe they can live in the greatest nation on earth and not have to pay taxes.

But tell me this Ace. What is it about being rich that makes you fuckers so cheap and stingy. Oh yeah taxing you wealthy fuckers at the same rate as the working man would be a terrible injustice wouldn't it Richy Rich?

[BigTrobbing]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You see that, tenguy? I told you conservatives want to get rid of Social Security...

You progressives are amazing. How did you get that out of what I said?? I said Privatizing is no worse then letting the government watching it.

I used bigger letter because apparently progressives also have BAD eyes.

And it is a ponzi scheme. You need people coming in to pay for the people already in it. And if you or I were to do it the government would have us in jail.

[Snugglebear]

how-to-get-a-girlffiend webs com/ ][img]photography-on-the net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile gif[/img] Great forum

[Snugglebear]

knol google com/k/anonymous/-/30awno43el7xx/2 ][img]photography-on-the net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile gif[/img] Great community

[Snugglebear]

randybuck862 bravejournal com ][img]photography-on-the net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile gif[/img] My 1st post Great forum

[BigTrobbing]

Originally Posted by stumbler

First you would not last a month without our government.



No the unions would not last a day. Remember when the government was shut down during clinton?? The only ones that cried were the progressives and the unions.


Second, how many people in this country would favor doing away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicade. I bet you can't find a majority of the people in the state you're in. And I know only a fraction would approve it in the state I'm in and its one of the most conservative in the nation.


The people paid into this, it is THEIR money. So once again the government gets them to come to them.



Third, social security and the other programs are not even in real trouble yet and and when push comes to shove no one in this nation I know is willing to start watching people starve and die in the streets.


LOL are you kidding??? All that is in that supposed lock box is IOU's BOTH parties raided it long ago. It is only when a democrat is in office that it is solvent and broke when a Republican is in office. Just like the homeless. When a Progressive is in office then there is no homeless and the opposite when a Republican in is. LOL


So all this bullshit is the same tiny minority that see social security as the only government program they have not had a chance to raid yet.

Yep, only a tiny minority sees that. And I imagine you fall into that because you think it is solvent. See now we actually agree on something.



Finally who did we just bail out to the tune of more than $13 TRILLION DOLLARS. Was that our government or was that the same private sector you think could handle a trust-fund?

We should not have bailed any of them out. What ever happened to the American way?? The strong survive and if they fail then someone will pick up what is left and make something else. GM should never have been bailed out, that money we will never see and they told us just that about a month ago. The unions will continue to finish off what they can and then they will be in the same boat they were in before the bail out.

I know I did not get a bail out did you?? I bet not. What ever happened to bankruptcy?? When obama ran that with GM the ones that got the biggest screwing were the shareholders. Those are the ones that invested into GM They received NOTHING but the unions made out good.

I know I would NEVER buy a GM product because of what happened there, and many others would not also.


So as far as I am concerned I can handle MY money better then the government if you want them to take care of yours ten that should be YOUR option and I should have mine.

Just to make sure you understand I NEVER said I wanted to get rid of SS. So you and Kimiko do not put words in my mouth I said it is a PONZI scheme.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Now it appears that the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget this year was only "hypothetical". Uh-huh....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._01/027383.php

The Republicans got voted for this past election because people were unhappy with the economy. This was the same reason that Barack Obama got voted for in 2008. People vote for whomever they think has the magic pill.

Of course, now the Republicans have to try and keep their campaign promises as Obama has tried. They will succeed in some ways and fail in others. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have all the answers. But, working together they may do better.

I like the current balance of power.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

We should not have bailed any of them out. What ever happened to the American way??

Only a brainwashed fool would not recognize that government bailing out the greed and corruption of private sector IS the American way and has been since the United States Constitution was written. And government bailouts of private companies and industries sure didn't start with President Obama.

President Carter had to bail out Chrysler Ronald Reagan bailed out the Savings and Loan industry after it was looted and both the TARP and Stimulus Package were started under George Bush

But I do agree that it does prove the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation.

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

The strong survive and if they fail then someone will pick up what is left and make something else. GM should never have been bailed out, that money we will never see and they told us just that about a month ago. The unions will continue to finish off what they can and then they will be in the same boat they were in before the bail out.

The depth of your brainwashed propaganda is quite impressive. You don't even know that GM is once again a leading brand in the world and most the money has been paid back and GM is a public company again. That saved millions of jobs that depend on the auto industry.

And if GM has the same unions (which made huge concessions to help save the US auto industry) but different managers and are once again a world leader then the problem was not the UAW no was it?

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

I know I did not get a bail out did you?? I bet not. What ever happened to bankruptcy?? When obama ran that with GM the ones that got the biggest screwing were the shareholders. Those are the ones that invested into GM They received NOTHING but the unions made out good.

Why do you keep crying so hysterically about bailing out GM when GM is not only doing well and paying the taxpayers back, they received a pittance of government help compared to the money we had to pump into insurance companies, banks, and Wall Street?

And not bailing out the bankers and stockbrokers was not an option. It would have been a global financial meltdown. It would have been akin to standing there watching a nuclear power plant start to melt down and not doing anything about it because you don't want any government interference.

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

I know I would NEVER buy a GM product because of what happened there, and many others would not also.

Who cares what you do? Millions of people don't care if GM got bailed out. What they care about is a quality automobile. That's why GM is now a leading brand in China which is a huge new market opening up.

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

So as far as I am concerned I can handle MY money better then the government if you want them to take care of yours ten that should be YOUR option and I should have mine.

You would have no money if it wasn't for our government and I mean that literally.You would have no economy without out government because there would be no way to transport goods. You would not last a month without our government.

Neither would anyone else because our government not only protects us they also bring us Water, which is something we cannot live without.

So that's why I say only fools believe they can live in one of the best, safest, and most prosperous nations in the world and not have to pay taxes.

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

Just to make sure you understand I NEVER said I wanted to get rid of SS. So you and Kimiko do not put words in my mouth I said it is a PONZI scheme.

I don't think I directly accused you but just in case I did I apologize and appreciate you making your contradictory statement here.

By the way Social Security in no way resembles a Ponzi scheme. Its a trust fund that can be funded quite easily for posterity with some minor adjustments.

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The Republicans got voted for this past election because people were unhappy with the economy. This was the same reason that Barack Obama got voted for in 2008. People vote for whomever they think has the magic pill.

Of course, now the Republicans have to try and keep their campaign promises as Obama has tried. They will succeed in some ways and fail in others. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have all the answers. But, working together they may do better.

I like the current balance of power.

I pointed out that it seemed to me that in Michelle Bachmann's misguided response to President Obama's state of the Union Address she must have screamed jobs about 20 times and blamed the lack of them on President Obama and the Democrats.

OK, well fine. Now its the conservatives/Republican/Tea Baggers turn to create jobs and if they don't the majority of Americans are going vote against them.

Because, yes folks, the majority of Americans wants their government to solve their problems and make their lives easier. They want and expect their government to be able to restore the economy and the prosperity we had. That's the 95% of Americans the GOP/Tea Party ignores while they cater to the wealthiest 5%.

PS And yes I did receive a government bailout on my unemployment extension and the subsidy for my COBRA insurance subsidy which might have saved my life.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

You progressives are amazing. How did you get that out of what I said?? I said Privatizing is no worse then letting the government watching it.

I used bigger letter because apparently progressives also have BAD eyes.

And it is a ponzi scheme. You need people coming in to pay for the people already in it. And if you or I were to do it the government would have us in jail.

The government has never lost a dime of my social security contributions nor yours. Its all accounted for. You can't say that for Wall Street, the bankers, the financiers, or the insruance giants.

And no one has ever been able to tell me how much money we would have lost if our Social Security had been invested in Wall Street when the stock-market crashed from above 14,000 to below 9,000 and still is only about 12,000.

But everyone I know who had their retirement funds invested in the stock market lost a lot to the greed and corruption of the money handlers. Not the government.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

You progressives are amazing. How did you get that out of what I said?? I said Privatizing is no worse then letting the government watching it.

I used bigger letter because apparently progressives also have BAD eyes.

And it is a ponzi scheme. You need people coming in to pay for the people already in it. And if you or I were to do it the government would have us in jail.

So, basically you're saying you're okay with maintaining a ponzi scheme, as long as it's a PRIVATE ponzi scheme.

Get real. Social Security is IN NO WAY a ponzi scheme. It takes money in from workers according to a formula, it sends money out to beneficiaries according to a formula. It accounts for every penny. It meets every obligation, and always has.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

So, basically you're saying you're okay with maintaining a ponzi scheme, as long as it's a PRIVATE ponzi scheme.

Get real. Social Security is IN NO WAY a ponzi scheme. It takes money in from workers according to a formula, it sends money out to beneficiaries according to a formula. It accounts for every penny. It meets every obligation, and always has.

I've also noticed that if things are not going the way we want them to in Social Security or anywhere else in government we can fire our politicians and get new ones.

That's obviously not true for crooked stock brokers and bankers.

[stumbler]

.......... when it comes to hilarity. Check this out:

Back in September, intrepid blogger Mike Stark broke a story claiming that Rep. John Boehner was having an affair with a lobbyist for the printers association. At the time, Stark wrote:

"Several hundred paper-making jobs were lost in his district and he refused to do anything about it at the same time he was sleeping with a lobbyist for the printing industry that was very happy to get their cheap paper from China. Gotta give it to Lyons though! She’s one hell of a lobbyist!

It was greeted with a resounding silence from the corporate media.
But today, the National Enquirer will carry the story.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madr...urging-ranks-a

Is this going to be bye, bye Boehner already?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I've also noticed that if things are not going the way we want them to in Social Security or anywhere else in government we can fire our politicians and get new ones.

That's obviously not true for crooked stock brokers and bankers.

So why do you keep backing the same crooked and ineffective Senators and Representatives?

You have never been exposed to the harsh realities of the business, if you think that crooked bankers and stock brokers get away with illegal activities.

There have been hundreds of cases of financial crime prosecution in the US since 2000, there have been many companies shut down and their executives jailed.

You just want to beat on that broken drum, even though it makes no sound.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Only a brainwashed fool would not recognize that government bailing out the greed and corruption of private sector IS the American way and has been since the United States Constitution was written. And government bailouts of private companies and industries sure didn't start with President Obama.

President Carter had to bail out Chrysler Ronald Reagan bailed out the Savings and Loan industry after it was looted and both the TARP and Stimulus Package were started under George Bush

But I do agree that it does prove the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation.



The depth of your brainwashed propaganda is quite impressive. You don't even know that GM is once again a leading brand in the world and most the money has been paid back and GM is a public company again. That saved millions of jobs that depend on the auto industry.

And if GM has the same unions (which made huge concessions to help save the US auto industry) but different managers and are once again a world leader then the problem was not the UAW no was it?



Why do you keep crying so hysterically about bailing out GM when GM is not only doing well and paying the taxpayers back, they received a pittance of government help compared to the money we had to pump into insurance companies, banks, and Wall Street?

And not bailing out the bankers and stockbrokers was not an option. It would have been a global financial meltdown. It would have been akin to standing there watching a nuclear power plant start to melt down and not doing anything about it because you don't want any government interference.



Who cares what you do? Millions of people don't care if GM got bailed out. What they care about is a quality automobile. That's why GM is now a leading brand in China which is a huge new market opening up.



You would have no money if it wasn't for our government and I mean that literally.You would have no economy without out government because there would be no way to transport goods. You would not last a month without our government.

Neither would anyone else because our government not only protects us they also bring us Water, which is something we cannot live without.

So that's why I say only fools believe they can live in one of the best, safest, and most prosperous nations in the world and not have to pay taxes.



I don't think I directly accused you but just in case I did I apologize and appreciate you making your contradictory statement here.

By the way Social Security in no way resembles a Ponzi scheme. Its a trust fund that can be funded quite easily for posterity with some minor adjustments.



I pointed out that it seemed to me that in Michelle Bachmann's misguided response to President Obama's state of the Union Address she must have screamed jobs about 20 times and blamed the lack of them on President Obama and the Democrats.

OK, well fine. Now its the conservatives/Republican/Tea Baggers turn to create jobs and if they don't the majority of Americans are going vote against them.

Because, yes folks, the majority of Americans wants their government to solve their problems and make their lives easier. They want and expect their government to be able to restore the economy and the prosperity we had. That's the 95% of Americans the GOP/Tea Party ignores while they cater to the wealthiest 5%.

PS And yes I did receive a government bailout on my unemployment extension and the subsidy for my COBRA insurance subsidy which might have saved my life.

Stumbler,

I didn't know you were unemployed.
Hang in there Bud. Things will get better again.

Whitey

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Stumbler,

I didn't know you were unemployed.
Hang in there Bud. Things will get better again.

Whitey

Not unemployed. Disabled. First time in 1995, but once I got healed up I just went back to work in the oilfield because the boom was on. Then despite knowing about my disability when they hired me, on my last job one supervisor said I was having problems physically and I was too old so they ran me off. (We're still having some official discussions over that one).

But by that time I was in so much pain in my neck and shoulders I went back to a doctor and they determined that fighting with ungreased valves had restacked the vertebra in my neck and now a piece of one is pressing in on my spinal cord. Between that and the permanent shoulder injury I had in '95 they canceled my ticket to work, with prejudice I'd call it. Because this doctor said he was going to officially disable me so I would not be able to sneak back to work some place. Instead he said it was time to file for social security disability which I did and got approved instantly at least by SS standards.

I've been waiting a year and half for our worker's comp division to approve the surgery the doctors say I need on my neck. But as usual they deny everything the first time and make me go through a hearing process which takes about six months.

So that's my story and while I don't think I'd have made it public, parts of it got out anyway so I might as well set the record straight.

But to state it again, between the time I got ran off and approved for disability the extended unemployment payments kept the payments made and food on the table and because of the COBRA subsidy I had insurance when I got appendicitis which saved me about $15,000 in medical bills.

Those are the first things I'd seen the government do for the average working people in decades and it helped millions of people avoid total disaster.

[stumbler]

You may have noticed its Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. And you probably noticed that because the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are very busy trying to re-write Reagan's actual presidency and try to turn him into some great conservative hero.

Well bullshit I suffered through eight years of Ronald Reagan and watched him wreck the country with the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation and am not willing to let those myths go unchallenged.

So here's five myths about Ronald Reagan:

1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

5.Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[ThisFNG]

Originally Posted by stumbler

They are going to try and tackle the whole problem and not just more law enforcement resources.

And as the story pointed out the Obama Administration is deporting record numbers of illegal aliens.

So what's your solution Ace?

And as big as I posted it you and tenguy still can't see jobs can you?

What should we do with the people and businesses that employ illegal aliens Ace. Because if people and businesses in the US did not give them jobs they would not be coming here in the first place.

And lets put this in perspective. See if I got selling drugs out of my car they would not only throw me in jail they would seize my car and all my money. If I also had drugs out of my house they could seize my house.

So what happens when a business or person gets caught employing illegal aliens? Usually not a fucking thing and they're the ones making money off something illegal just like the drug dealers are.

The moral equivalency argument is so weak.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by stumbler

...But that does not have anything to do with US businesses, people and corporations giving jobs to illegal aliens which is why illegal aliens REALLY come here in the first place.

I think they come here for the free healthcare, free education, free police protection, ability to sue, and to take advantage of our generosity.

You don't have to deport the illegals, just cut off the free ride and enforce our laws. They'll deport themselves.

[ThisFNG]

follow the money. search campaign contributions. and open a new window than search who voted for for which pieces of dross. put the lists side by side.

bet you a penny you find the same thing I did, that the same assholes who took our money and gave it to failures and retards in GM/Fanny/Freddy/AIG/BofA/(insert ALL financial, they all got free money), coincidentally received contributions from the same.

we all now get to pay for it in the form of inflated price, reduced GDP and unemployment.

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

We should not have bailed any of them out. What ever happened to the American way?? The strong survive and if they fail then someone will pick up what is left and make something else. GM should never have been bailed out, that money we will never see and they told us just that about a month ago. The unions will continue to finish off what they can and then they will be in the same boat they were in before the bail out.

I know I did not get a bail out did you?? I bet not. What ever happened to bankruptcy?? When obama ran that with GM the ones that got the biggest screwing were the shareholders. Those are the ones that invested into GM They received NOTHING but the unions made out good.

I know I would NEVER buy a GM product because of what happened there, and many others would not also.


So as far as I am concerned I can handle MY money better then the government if you want them to take care of yours ten that should be YOUR option and I should have mine.

Just to make sure you understand I NEVER said I wanted to get rid of SS. So you and Kimiko do not put words in my mouth I said it is a PONZI scheme.

[ThisFNG]

?Que?

Of course they haven't lost it, they just print more.

Google: PONZI

Maddoff: Takes money from professional investors and pays it to people in the form of outrageous interest returns. Illegal

SS: Take money from tax payers and pay it to people in the form of outrageous interest returns on minuscule contributions. Stumbler Verdict 'never lost a dime of my money', OK by me!

I guess taking money from willing idiots, who Federal Securities LAW, by Requires, are not allowed to invest unless they are professionals, and should know better, is Illegal. But FORCING me to pay for your ass, who is too dumb or lazy to PLAN for his own retirement, is perfectly acceptable.

(And don't give me that bullshit sob story, about stealing old people's money, Madoff was a fund of funds, and only 100 investor/partners, himself included in that number, were allowed to invest. I'm sure even you can divide the size of the loss by the 100 possible members and realize there was no way all those idiots could have invested their 'million dollar' life's savings there. It is called diversification morons! That is why only professionals are ALLOWED to invest in Hedge Funds, they HEDGE market risk, and are not intended as a solo investment.)

Originally Posted by stumbler

The government has never lost a dime of my social security contributions nor yours. Its all accounted for. You can't say that for Wall Street, the bankers, the financiers, or the insruance giants.

And no one has ever been able to tell me how much money we would have lost if our Social Security had been invested in Wall Street when the stock-market crashed from above 14,000 to below 9,000 and still is only about 12,000.

But everyone I know who had their retirement funds invested in the stock market lost a lot to the greed and corruption of the money handlers. Not the government.