Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2010?

[Syl]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>Worried about your junk food habit?

WTF..... You empty headed, foul minded talking jerk,it's none of your business. First, I don't eat junk food, I couldn't anyway and if I did , it would be bought with money "I earned". Not like you who buys yours with money other people earned.
Again, I mean no disrespect to disabled or unemployed people. Maybe they could have more help, if it wasn't for the lazy , able bodied people that wouldn't work in a pie factory, tasting pies.

[whitehair]

Art Freen wrote:

<quoted text>
So let me make sure I understand your position. You'd rather vote for someone who, if they are able to enact their policies, will privatize Social Security,dumping the funds into the stock market casino,turn Medicare into a voucher system that will only pay 2/3 of what Medicare now pays for, leaving you to pay the rest out of your own pocket, and increase taxes for anyone making less than $100,000 a year?

Some comments on here are so assinine one hardly knows if a reply is worth the effort.But, this is a try==dumping the funds into the stock market casino?Lets try to answer that first.
Yes,I would rather have a privatized personaly held annuity,not able to dip into it til retirement.No one has suggested the stock market.Yes,they are thru Insurance Companies,but they pay up to 8% for younger citizens.If you had this instead of SS#,your retirement would be two or three times SS#.AND,it is yours,no one dips into it,and it is left to your heirs at your death,or maybe this confuses you?
Medicare into a voucher system?--yes,because the voucher buys a insurance policy designed to meet your individual needs.Now that would buy a policy paying the amount you contracted for.Where did you agree to 2/3rds?Yes,you would have to pay some difference,assuming the policy called for it.That is where you have your choice.Medicare pays,after your deductible,which is their choice,and they have not contracted with you to agree to your medical as medicare will deny your needs in your old age for that which the Dr.may suggest.Such as if you live to 75/80 they may just say go ahead and die.It`s cheaper!
Also,if medicare and SS# run out of money,the gov`t may not replace anything,and you get nothing!!

Think about what is the better,not what your Party says.
Vote for Romney and Ryan to get better gov`t!!!

[whitehair]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>Worried about your junk food habit?

You know you have rejected the info that Obama has raised taxes for so long,would you please think about your future?
Obama is going to tax you if you can not afford medical insurance.The going amount is mentioned as $640.00.Now that might take an entire months gov`t check you receive to give back to stay out of jail, meeting your tax obligation!!!Junk food,don`t think they have that in jail.

[Art Freen]

whitehair wrote:

<quoted text>
Some comments on here are so assinine one hardly knows if a reply is worth the effort.But, this is a try==dumping the funds into the stock market casino?Lets try to answer that first.
Yes,I would rather have a privatized personaly held annuity,not able to dip into it til retirement.No one has suggested the stock market.Yes,they are thru Insurance Companies,but they pay up to 8% for younger citizens.If you had this instead of SS#,your retirement would be two or three times SS#.AND,it is yours,no one dips into it,and it is left to your heirs at your death,or maybe this confuses you?
Medicare into a voucher system?--yes,because the voucher buys a insurance policy designed to meet your individual needs.Now that would buy a policy paying the amount you contracted for.Where did you agree to 2/3rds?Yes,you would have to pay some difference,assuming the policy called for it.That is where you have your choice.Medicare pays,after your deductible,which is their choice,and they have not contracted with you to agree to your medical as medicare will deny your needs in your old age for that which the Dr.may suggest.Such as if you live to 75/80 they may just say go ahead and die.It`s cheaper!
Also,if medicare and SS# run out of money,the gov`t may not replace anything,and you get nothing!!
Think about what is the better,not what your Party says.
Vote for Romney and Ryan to get better gov`t!!!

And some comments on here are so full of half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods that it's not worth the effort either, but what the hell.

Your VP candidate suggested a market based solution...stock market based solution for Social Security in 2010, in his little "Roadmap for America's Future". Obviously you haven't read it.

The information on the Medicare voucher system, again advocated by your VP candidate, comes from the CBO analysis of his budget plan, that includes Medicare. Again, you obviously aren't familiar with that, either.

Surely you didn't try to sneak in the lie about "death panels" into the nonsense about contracts and "choice". You have CHOICE now. You aren't required to use Medicare, are you? You can have other or additional insurance now can't you? Who decides what is covered and what isn't? hint...it ain't you, unless you're self-insured that is.

Social Security remains solvent until at least 2033,and that's if NOTHING is done. It would be solvent practically in perpetuity with the removal of the income cap.

So, perhaps you should do some thinking too and turn off talk radio and Fake News.

[just how I am]

jodi wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post. But who in the WH listens to the people. Obama already proved he don't listen to no one but his consorts . He does not care about us for sure. He wants to be the king and rule over people he can order around.
If Romney is elected, he will want to make a name for his self as the one who got this country back on track and that will help him get elected again next time. Also it will be a big incentive for him because that will mean his own business will do better and means more money for him to pull the country out of this mess. That would be a "win, win" for the country and him.

So true.

[whitehair]

Art Freen wrote:

<quoted text>
And some comments on here are so full of half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods that it's not worth the effort either, but what the hell.
Your VP candidate suggested a market based solution...stock market based solution for Social Security in 2010, in his little "Roadmap for America's Future". Obviously you haven't read it.
The information on the Medicare voucher system, again advocated by your VP candidate, comes from the CBO analysis of his budget plan, that includes Medicare. Again, you obviously aren't familiar with that, either.
Surely you didn't try to sneak in the lie about "death panels" into the nonsense about contracts and "choice". You have CHOICE now. You aren't required to use Medicare, are you? You can have other or additional insurance now can't you? Who decides what is covered and what isn't? hint...it ain't you, unless you're self-insured that is.
Social Security remains solvent until at least 2033,and that's if NOTHING is done. It would be solvent practically in perpetuity with the removal of the income cap.
So, perhaps you should do some thinking too and turn off talk radio and Fake News.

You are correct on the plans but two years behind what the now plan is.Go to the plans and find the today`s changes made due to the CBO and others involved and you will see what was quoted that I gave you as correct.

Using Medicare is a no brainer.It saves money. So of course it is used

No,the choice spoken of would be a choice of the coverage one wanted to purchase with the voucher of the Gov`t.You can put what ever you personally need in the contract ,or,policy.For instance the young need some things,the older,Being individuals,each need something the other does not,and ,personally my preference is to run my own live and needs .

The so called death panels are not what all have made them out to be.There is involved a panel thet does make decisions on need and costs would naturally get involved.My position is to ignore any panel and get what ever my Dr.recommended.Even if it costs me .not every one could afford this and after the first one,neither could we or the average person.

Now about SS#.If the gov`t wants,the amount in the so called trust fund has been used and can be used for any purpose the Congress and President get together and decide on.The suggested annuity would be not touch- able.It would be the purchasers only,given to his/her heirs at the death of the insured.My company had one for me,and garranteed,it pays about double SS#.Don`t think much will be left if I live a lot longer!!So,yes,I do advocate this for all younger workers.It would do little for anyone over 55,but there again,the ones over 55 could stay with SS# as is.

You do grasp the fact this Country is in debt now over$16 trillion?If is goes to $25 trillion as predicted if Obama has another 4 years,and by 2025 it may be 25 trillion.This Country will be broke.Every fund that can be will be grabbed and used in that event.Read about Greece?They are giving up on retirement,etc.

[whitehair]

If might help if you also turned off the fake news of your Party and went to listen to all the news ,then make up your own mind as to what you think is the truth.We all know both sides lie to us and tell their constituents what they want to hear,mixed with truth and lies,partial truths and partial lies.

I know about SS# and about annuities because involved in both.Medicare is something we take what the gov`t gives and have nothing to say about it,really.My desire is to control as much of my life as possible.Much is also now not possible to control.If you are young enough,good luck,hope you make the right decisions.As the pols say,God bless.

[Art Freen]

So, if "Using Medicare is a no brainer. It saves money", why get rid of it? Why go to a voucher system that WILL cost people more, in some cases a lot more, in out-of-pocket expenses? The average voucher will pay seniors about $11,000 to purchase insurance on the private market. Good luck finding any policy with a level of coverage anywhere close to what Medicare provides for $11K a year.

Look, I know the mantra about "choice" and that your "preference is to run my own live and needs" is an article of faith among rightwingers. But do you really want to lower your standard of living just to have the satisfaction of knowing you *chose* to lower it? That simply defies common sense.

As I said earlier, Social Security is solvent to at least 2033 and can be made solvent for decades to come by simply removing the income cap. The Right has wanted to kill Social Security from its very inception. The "we're gonna run out of money" nonsense is just the latest false flag operation.

By the way, the $16 trillion figure? That's public debt. Private debt in the US is 5 times that amount or 260% of GDP. Now, the public debt figure is worrisome, but pales in comparison to private debt. Funny thing, you never hear about that. Care to take as guess why?

Oh, and as for Greece? The government began an austerity program there---tax cuts, spending cuts, benefit cuts--you know, the exact same plan advocated by your boys--- so did Spain, Italy and the UK. They're back in recession now. You sure you want that? Really?

[Are You Kidding]

A personal journal belonging to U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was obtained by CNN, and The Wall Street Journal is reporting that it "broadcast reports based on its contents against the wishes of the Stevens family, according to relatives and State Department officials who were asked to intervene by the family."

THIS IS A SHAME!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/cnn-obtain...

[hollerrat]

art freen im calling bullshit on your bullshit, why doi you leftwingwhackadoos have to make shit up to try and defend your position

[saddened]

oh another rat god needs to take them off the planet go run to ur hole

[wtf]

hollerrat wrote:

art freen im calling bullshit on your bullshit, why doi you leftwingwhackadoos have to make shit up to try and defend your position

Why do conservaturds lie all the time and eat piles?

[Veteran]

NOT PAUL !!!

Veterans’ Jobs Bill Blocked in the Senate By Republicans

Veterans’ Jobs Bill Blocked in the Senate
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Eager to shoot down President Obama’s legislative agenda just weeks
before the election, Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure
that would have provided $1 billion over five years to help veterans
find work in their communities.

The measure, which would have potentially created jobs for up to
20,000 veterans, was blocked on a procedural point by Republicans, who
argued that the bill was unpaid for. Senator Patty Murray, a
Washington Democrat and the bill’s main sponsor, said the bill would
have covered the costs in part with fees on Medicare providers and
suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills.

The procedural vote was 58 to 40; 60 votes would have been required to
waive Republican objections.

The bill was opposed, by, among others, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican
of Oklahoma, who said he believed the bill duplicated existing job
programs for veterans that are not well run, and Senator Rand Paul,
Republican of Kentucky, who has been seeking amendments on bills that
would cut off funding to Egypt and to Pakistan until Pakistan freed
Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin
Laden.

“It’s both shocking and shameful that Republicans today chose to kill
a bill to put America’s veterans back to work,” Ms. Murray said in a
statement.

“At a time when one in four young veterans are unemployed,” she said,
“Republicans should have been able, for just this once, to put aside
the politics of obstruction and to help these men and women provide
for their families.”

She added that the vote was “stark reminder” that Mitch McConnell,
Senate minority leader from Kentucky, and Senate Republicans “are
willing to do absolutely anything to fulfill the pledge he made nearly
two years ago to defeat President Obama. It doesn’t matter who gets in
their way or which Americans they have to sacrifice in that pursuit,
even if it’s our nation’s veterans.”

Some Republicans, five of whom voted for the bill, also seemed
disappointed about the failure of legislation that had the veneer of
bipartisan support.“These men and women have worn our uniform,
shouldered the burden and faced unthinkable dangers in forward areas
during a very dangerous time,” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said.

[Are You Kidding]

Unfortunately, the Veterans’ Jobs Bill was based on politics and not on a real solution to helping veterans get jobs. The Democrats’ use of “veteran” in the bill indicates a focus on trying to help unemployed veterans. According to Senator Coburn, there are a total of six job programs already available to veterans. One such program, the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, was signed by President Obama in November of 2011. The Act provides businesses tax credits as an incentive to hire veterans and seeks to improve the transition from the military to the civilian workforce. Also, the Federal government already provides funding for local police and fire departments to hire personnel.

The Democrats’ bill focused on increasing the size of government and adding to the debt. Did they think that would be supported by the smaller government and fiscally conservative Republicans? Of course not. The Democrats knew that bill would not have passed the House but decided to push ahead with it in the Senate. This was done as an opportunity to label Republicans as disinterested in helping unemployed veterans.

An election season is a prime opportunity to divide and conquer any and all groups for voters. The Democrats’ ploy shows they are interested in politics and not with veteran unemployment. Instead of introducing additional bills, and debt, they should review the existing veteran employment programs for effectiveness. That would show that they do care about veterans and the country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15164/veter...

[Wondering]

I'll do agree

[wondering]

Are You Kidding wrote:

Unfortunately, the Veterans’ Jobs Bill was based on politics and not on a real solution to helping veterans get jobs. The Democrats’ use of “veteran” in the bill indicates a focus on trying to help unemployed veterans. According to Senator Coburn, there are a total of six job programs already available to veterans. One such program, the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, was signed gtby President Obama in November of 2011. The Act provides businesses tax credits as an incentive to hire veterans and seeks to improve the transition from the military to the civilian workforce. Also, the Federal government already provides funding for local police and fire departments to hire personnel.
The Democrats’ bill focused on increasing the size of government and adding to the debt. Did they think that would be supported by the smaller government and fiscally conservative Republicans? Of course not. The Democrats knew that bill would not have passed the House but decided to push ahead with it in the Senate. This was done as an opportunity to label Republicans as disinterested in helping unemployed veterans.
An election season is a prime opportunity to divide and conquer any and all groups for voters. The Democrats’ ploy shows they are interested in politics and not with veteran unemployment. Instead of introducing additional bills, and debt, they should review the existing veteran employment programs for effectiveness. That would show that they do care about veterans and the country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15164/veter...

You are so sad

[whitehair]

Are You Kidding wrote:

Unfortunately, the Veterans’ Jobs Bill was based on politics and not on a real solution to helping veterans get jobs. The Democrats’ use of “veteran” in the bill indicates a focus on trying to help unemployed veterans. According to Senator Coburn, there are a total of six job programs already available to veterans. One such program, the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, was signed by President Obama in November of 2011. The Act provides businesses tax credits as an incentive to hire veterans and seeks to improve the transition from the military to the civilian workforce. Also, the Federal government already provides funding for local police and fire departments to hire personnel.
The Democrats’ bill focused on increasing the size of government and adding to the debt. Did they think that would be supported by the smaller government and fiscally conservative Republicans? Of course not. The Democrats knew that bill would not have passed the House but decided to push ahead with it in the Senate. This was done as an opportunity to label Republicans as disinterested in helping unemployed veterans.
An election season is a prime opportunity to divide and conquer any and all groups for voters. The Democrats’ ploy shows they are interested in politics and not with veteran unemployment. Instead of introducing additional bills, and debt, they should review the existing veteran employment programs for effectiveness. That would show that they do care about veterans and the country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15164/veter...

When we have so many aids and help extended,and have to borrow the money to do so much,thanks for a simple explanation as to why all this duplication needs to not pass.

Rand and Ron Paul have become heroes to the conservative.Except for drugs we do not agree on.

The real regret is that they did not pass the Bill to cut off the aid to our enemies that wish to kill us.Hard to understand giving money to them.

[Are You Kidding]

wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so sad

Why do you consider me sad?

[SoFNwhat]

Guess what? I don't give a fat rat's @ss.

[Syl]

saddened wrote:

oh another rat god needs to take them off the planet go run to ur hole

Hey, you are up to ten words. Atta boy.