Obama can't guarantee SS payments

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'll take William Shatner circa 1970 or Kirstie Alley circa 1985 as a compliment. Anything else and I'll spend the rest of this thread bitching about PAs.

Nicely done!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>If you think that voting is going to fix this steaming shitpile we're in as a nation,
>pass the pipe over here man...I want a hit of what you're having.

And if you think that our life sucks so much that war between the states would be better - then you have seen neither war nor a life that really sucks.

For all the political posturing on here, the US really does have it pretty good compared to the rest of the world. For all our bitching, our government works. For all our complaining, our taxes aren't that high. For all our use of colorful metaphors like "steaming shitpile" it's pretty clear that people just like to bitch - and that 99.99% of the people in the US tomorrow will wake up not having to face being arrested for no good reason, not having to watch their kids die in uncontrollable violence, and not have to worry about starving to death.

And compared to those issues, not liking the political orientation of the current president means next to nothing.

[billvon 3,132]

>you (or BV or Dan) can take that as a compliment or not

Who's been holding up the damn elevator?

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

The FACTS are posted are just that. I am well aware that the facts conflict with your OPINION.

Except they're NOT fact, but your opinion.

Republicans controlled Congress from 95 - 07. During that time, the debt went from 4.8T to 8.7T (unadjusted numbers). That's roughly a 3.9T increase, or 885M / day.

Democrats took over in 07, debt is now 14.3T - roughly a 5T increase, or 3.4B / day.

146% the increase, in 38% of the time.

Quote

Both statements can easily be proven to be factually incorrect by basic staistical analysis.

Debunked, above.

Quote

But all that intellectual mumbo jumbo is meaningless. The facts don't really matter to libs. Just their beliefs. Facts are annoying details that must be discarded when they conflict with the beliefs.

And fixed that for you again.

The time frame you selected is short. Very short. The disasterous spending patterns by Republicans started with the Reagan Adminstration, carried on through Shrub1, and was drastically accelerated by Shrub2. The facts are indisputable, if you looked into it.

You take a tiny slice of recent history, spew twisted statistics, and pretend that what you wrote actually makes sense.

You are blissfully unaware that ShrubCo did NOT have the Iraq and Afghanistan activities ON BUDGET. The sleazy fuck and the other sleazebag Republicans let him munge the budget numbers by doing special appropriations, instead of putting the costs ON BUDGET. In other words, they successfuly fooled a lot of ignorant, gullible people into believing that the budget numbers weren't really as bad as they actually were by LYING to you. Hello, your team is a pack of lying weasels, and you actually back them up via your willfull ignorance of the FACTS of the matter. They have lied to you, and you are really happy with that. You eat that bullshit up willingly and repeat the bullshit back like it is real. It isn't. When will you ever learn?

One of the very first things that the Obama administration did was put the Iraq and Afghanistan activities BACK ON BUDGET. In other words, the Dems actually did what you say you think is a good thing - FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Now that the true costs of what YOUR TEAM committed us to has been revealed, you are blaming it on the current adminstration, and you are all pissed off about it.

Blame those that are responsible, not those that are trying to clean up after those that were responsible.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Fact is, federal taxes favor those who complain the most about federal taxes. Alaska is BY FAR a net beneficiary from federal spending, as are most of the "red" states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Fact is, federal taxes favor those who complain the most about federal taxes. Alaska is BY FAR a net beneficiary from federal spending, as are most of the "red" states.

We'd need to see IRS numbers and money spent on Alaskan benefit only projects to prove that.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Fact is, federal taxes favor those who complain the most about federal taxes. Alaska is BY FAR a net beneficiary from federal spending, as are most of the "red" states.

We'd need to see IRS numbers and money spent on Alaskan benefit only projects to prove that.

www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-moochers-10-states-that-are-getting-the-most-tax-dollars-2010-2#alaska-131808-per-person-10

Depending on the year, Alaska ranks 3rd or 4th among the moocher states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

It is a proven, scientific fact, that Liberals have a genetic defect.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Fact is, federal taxes favor those who complain the most about federal taxes. Alaska is BY FAR a net beneficiary from federal spending, as are most of the "red" states.

We'd need to see IRS numbers and money spent on Alaskan benefit only projects to prove that.

www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-moochers-10-states-that-are-getting-the-most-tax-dollars-2010-2#alaska-131808-per-person-10

Depending on the year, Alaska ranks 3rd or 4th among the moocher states.

Your numbers are from 2005 and additionally no clarification is made on Alasksn only benefit vs. other states/federal benefit,

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,132]

>I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer
>had to pay federal income taxes.

I'm sure every state would be happy to do that - not pay any taxes while still getting free stuff (ATC services, military protection, highway funds etc.) And I'm sure Alaskan senators and representatives would push for that even if it meant bankrupting the USA.

[billvon 3,132]

> It is a proven, scientific fact, that Liberals have a genetic defect.

. . . says the conservative whose avatar looks a lot like a monkey!

[airborne47 0]

Hahahaha So you think we should raise the personale income tax on the extreamly rich like Bill Gates. That's a good one. They don't have a personale income to tax! It's corporate! More democratic rocket science.

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

>If you think that voting is going to fix this steaming shitpile we're in as a nation,
>pass the pipe over here man...I want a hit of what you're having.

And if you think that our life sucks so much that war between the states would be better - then you have seen neither war nor a life that really sucks.

For all the political posturing on here, the US really does have it pretty good compared to the rest of the world. For all our bitching, our government works. For all our complaining, our taxes aren't that high. For all our use of colorful metaphors like "steaming shitpile" it's pretty clear that people just like to bitch - and that 99.99% of the people in the US tomorrow will wake up not having to face being arrested for no good reason, not having to watch their kids die in uncontrollable violence, and not have to worry about starving to death.

And compared to those issues, not liking the political orientation of the current president means next to nothing.

You missed your calling Bill; you should've been a liberal arts major. If speculation as to where I've been and what I've seen is the basis of you argument, then you fail miserably. As I said in my previous post, you have no knowledge of where I've been, what I've seen and experienced in my lifetime, nor the sacrifices of my family.

Make no mistake, there is no "political posturing" on my part. Our entire system sucks. I don't give a damn if you're Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, Left wing, right wing, conservative or Liberal...it matters not. The above mentioned parties/groups are ALL part of the problem. Pretending there is a solution is political posturing.

Quote

99.99% of the people in the US tomorrow will wake up not having to face being arrested for no good reason, not having to watch their kids die in uncontrollable violence, and not have to worry about starving to death.

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind relocating your residence to and conducting your business in St Louis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Detroit, Baltimore, or maybe KC.

After all, by your own figures, you would stand only one hundreth of one percent chance of experiencing uncontrolled violence there. Oh shit, I forgot. You're white...that will change things just a bit. As for not being arrested for no good reason, or starving to death; you might want to adjust those figures slightly too, based on the color of your skin.

I spend time occasionally at my sister's Condo in La Jolla, and you're right. I don't worry about much while I'm there. Spending time in any of the places I mentioned above though; I'm not quite so easy going and relaxed. Maybe you could spend some time there (as in living there) and report on the conditions. Maybe my perception as a visitor is skewed. Maybe the UCR is wrong, and just maybe, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass everytime they jumped.

Quote

And compared to those issues, not liking the political orientation of the current president means next to nothing.

Unlike you I can't read minds, but I suspect that either you own stock in Preparation H, or you stay awfully sore from pulling things like this outta your ass.

1st, I don't give two shits about Obama's political orientation. He's a politician; that's all I need to know about him.

2nd, (suspecting again, because I still can't read minds) I suspect those to whom the political orientation of the current President does mean something might just have a disagreememt with you there. Of course you'd have to ask them...or read their minds for yourself.

3rd Get back to me when you have more than supposition, hyperbole, and innuendo.

THE FOLLOWING IS MEANT LITERALLY, AND WITH NO SLIGHT INTENDED BILL; IT'S SOMETHING I JUST CAN'T GET A HANDLE ON. You used to make reasoned and rational arguments here Bill. You've either knowingly joined the unreasoned and unthinking who are here simply to stir the pot, or you've somehow been drawn into it. Back then, I honestly respected your position and the points you made, even though I may not have agreed. I can't honestly say that and mean it anymore. That, to me is a sad thing.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[billvon 3,132]

>Hahahaha So you think we should raise the personale income tax on the extreamly
>rich like Bill Gates. That's a good one. They don't have a personale income to tax! It's
>corporate! More democratic rocket science.

It's like clockwork. Every time a partisan poster mocks the intelligence of a group of people, their post contains some foolish mistake that could be avoided by spending even five seconds on the Net.

Bill Gates makes $1.1 million a year in regular salary. Not rocket science.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>you (or BV or Dan) can take that as a compliment or not

Who's been holding up the damn elevator?

haven't seen the movie for years, until two days ago when I was flipping stations and stopped on it for about 15 minutes or so - this scene included


Ricardo M talks in nearly worse cadence than Shatner. I suspect it comes from learning to act on black and white westerns.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>As I said in my previous post, you have no knowledge of where I've been, what
>I've seen and experienced in my lifetime . . .

No, I don't. But if you think that our country is so badly off, that the people here are so oppressed, tortured etc that a civil war is a better solution than to vote in the people you prefer - then either you don't know what war or oppression is like, or your view of the world is extremely cockeyed.

>Then perhaps you wouldn't mind relocating your residence to and conducting your
>business in St Louis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Detroit, Baltimore, or maybe KC.

So far I've conducted business in Atlanta, St. Louis and Detroit. Only lived four places so far, though, since it's a pain in the butt to move.

And if you think that Detroit is anything at all like, say, towns in countries like Niger in sub-Saharan Africa - then you've never been to sub-Saharan Africa.

>you stay awfully sore from pulling things like this outta your ass.

Sorry you can't discuss this rationally.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I didn't expect you'ld man up and accept any responsibility

So...list the national bozos politicians YOU voted for, eh?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You do realise that the oil refunds are a matter within the state legislature of Alaska
>and has nothing to do with the Congress of the United States?

Right. I used the information about the refunds to demonstrate that they really do have plenty of money to build bridges and roads and whatnot if they chose to use their surplus in that manner. But still they ask for more money from the federal government - because their constituents demand it.

Surely if any state can be cut from the federal trough, it's Alaska. And surely if there is an ideologically favorable place to propose such a thing, it's Alaska, which is very solidly republican. But republicans want federal money just as much as democrats do - and they make that very clear to their elected representatives.

I'm sure they'd go for that if in return the citizens and companies of Alaska no longer had to pay federal income taxes.

Fact is, federal taxes favor those who complain the most about federal taxes. Alaska is BY FAR a net beneficiary from federal spending, as are most of the "red" states.

We'd need to see IRS numbers and money spent on Alaskan benefit only projects to prove that.

www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-moochers-10-states-that-are-getting-the-most-tax-dollars-2010-2#alaska-131808-per-person-10

Depending on the year, Alaska ranks 3rd or 4th among the moocher states.

Your numbers are from 2005 and additionally no clarification is made on Alasksn only benefit vs. other states/federal benefit,

Obama was president in 2005? Wow, who would have thought it.

I guess the concepts of federal expenditures in a state and federal revenues from a state are too difficult for you to comprehend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Your numbers are from 2005 and additionally no clarification is made on Alasksn only benefit vs. other states/federal benefit,

Obama was president in 2005? Wow, who would have thought it.

I guess the concepts of federal expenditures in a state and federal revenues from a state are too difficult for you to comprehend.

Your tax numbers in the first link are from 2005.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343
69.1% of Alaska is owned by the federal government. So in addition to the federally funded projects that benefit more than just Alaska, how much of that money that Alaska is "mooching" for itself are going toward the 31.9% it actually owns?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't expect you'ld man up and accept any responsibility

So...list the national bozos politicians YOU voted for, eh?

Son, I'm old enough and wise enough not to legitimize this charade of national elections by my participation.

How about you,Andy?
Did you as a mouse stand in line to cast a vote for either of the cats on the ballot?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The time frame you selected is short. Very short. The disasterous spending patterns by Republicans started with the Reagan Adminstration, carried on through Shrub1, and was drastically accelerated by Shrub2. The facts are indisputable, if you looked into it.

Actually, the Reagan congress was Dem controlled. Funny how you don't mention the Dems blasting it into orbit over the last 3 years...since you want to talk about facts.

Quote

You take a tiny slice of recent history, spew twisted statistics, and pretend that what you wrote actually makes sense.

You are blissfully unaware that ShrubCo did NOT have the Iraq and Afghanistan activities ON BUDGET. The sleazy fuck and the other sleazebag Republicans let him munge the budget numbers by doing special appropriations, instead of putting the costs ON BUDGET. In other words, they successfuly fooled a lot of ignorant, gullible people into believing that the budget numbers weren't really as bad as they actually were by LYING to you.

For something that wasn't on budget, y'all sure were able to find the numbers to bitch about what was being spent. Guess it wasn't that invisible after all.

Quote

Blame those that are responsible, not those that are trying to clean up after those that were responsible.

Speaking of responsible... has Obama finally taken responsibility for the last two years, or is that still Bush's fault?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Son, I'm old enough and wise enough not to legitimize this charade of national elections by my participation.

Well, that pretty much says it all.

Quote

How about you,Andy?
Did you as a mouse stand in line to cast a vote for either of the cats on the ballot?

Nope. I did that as a citizen of this country, thank you.

It's just too bad that the two listed were a comparison of two evils. That's why I usually write-in.

From your previous statements, it appears that you stand alone in your viewpoint of the importance of your position.

Voters can't blame the politicians for their performance?
Well then, sir, non-voters can't blame voters for their performance.....or is your viewpoint more important than say, Chucks?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Son, I'm old enough and wise enough not to legitimize this charade of national elections by my participation.

Well, that pretty much says it all.

Quote

How about you,Andy?
Did you as a mouse stand in line to cast a vote for either of the cats on the ballot?

Nope. I did that as a citizen of this country, thank you.

It's just too bad that the two listed were a comparison of two evils. That's why I usually write-in.

From your previous statements, it appears that you stand alone in your viewpoint of the importance of your position.

Voters can't blame the politicians for their performance?
Well then, sir, non-voters can't blame voters for their performance.....or is your viewpoint more important than say, Chucks?

He's just tryin' to get yer hackles up Pops!


Chuck

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

The time frame you selected is short. Very short. The disasterous spending patterns by Republicans started with the Reagan Adminstration, carried on through Shrub1, and was drastically accelerated by Shrub2. The facts are indisputable, if you looked into it.

Actually, the Reagan congress was Dem controlled. Funny how you don't mention the Dems blasting it into orbit over the last 3 years...since you want to talk about facts.

Quote

You take a tiny slice of recent history, spew twisted statistics, and pretend that what you wrote actually makes sense.

You are blissfully unaware that ShrubCo did NOT have the Iraq and Afghanistan activities ON BUDGET. The sleazy fuck and the other sleazebag Republicans let him munge the budget numbers by doing special appropriations, instead of putting the costs ON BUDGET. In other words, they successfuly fooled a lot of ignorant, gullible people into believing that the budget numbers weren't really as bad as they actually were by LYING to you.

For something that wasn't on budget, y'all sure were able to find the numbers to bitch about what was being spent. Guess it wasn't that invisible after all.

Quote

Blame those that are responsible, not those that are trying to clean up after those that were responsible.

Speaking of responsible... has Obama finally taken responsibility for the last two years, or is that still Bush's fault?

Have you failed to follow the news recently? Do you not get that almost everything that the Obama administration and the Demcratic congress tried to do was stymied by the gross abuse of the filibuster in the Seante? Are you really so clueless that you don't know or care about how the Senate is supposed to work, and what the Rescumlicans have done to fuck up its operations completely? Is your memory so weak that you can't recall the Rescumlicans pitching a bitch in 2005 over the Democrat's use of the filibuster to stop ShrubCo to some extent?

Right Wing Conservatives hate the USA, especially the poor and old people. Why else would you scumbags support cutting programs that help them, while keeping TEMPORARY tax cuts in place during a time of a national fiscal crisis? The crisis caused by the practical application of RWC policies.

HEY ASSHOLES, the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire after ten years. Remember the marketing bullshit you suckers fell for? "Were're giving your own money back to you with these tax cuts since we have a budget surplus now."

Now we need the tax cuts to end and the Rescumlicans held the poor and unemployed hostage to extend them for two more years. Rich people grinding the poor into the dirt, cheered on by asshole RWCs. It might be time to apply some second amendment remedies to the obstructionists and the supporters that are holding the USA hostage to the extremely wealthy.

RWCs are dumb as dirt, and really proud of it. Fucking awesome...

The Texas education system seems to produce very poorly educated people. People who know little or nothing outside of the state. People who know squat about world history, world politics, and how the USA fits into that picture. Why don't you useless fucks go ahead and secede from the USA and quit taking MY tax dollars and wasting them in YOUR state? Your governeor has spoken openly about it, and you useless fucks didn't punt him out of office for being a traitor.