Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23645 Aug 30, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
There seems to be no point, you absolutely refuse to see the difference in the motivations. One offers as the motivating factor the desire to seek to create a debt in the receiver in order to gain from it. The other seeks to motivate the listener/reader to treat another well with NO EXPECTATION of "reward" for the action.
Regardless of how you phrase it, it still boils down to one party, as the initiator, is creating a situation where they have extended something to another (cooperation, civilty, love, empathy). This offering maybe be seen as a debt to be repaid, or as a gift to be exchanged, in either case this is a matter of perception for all of the parties involved (initiator, receiver, observer).

Regardless of how any of the parties view the offering, the fact remains that the initiator setup the potential for a reciprocal exchange, why is their motivation of such concern when the motivation of the initiator can vary from person to person (regardless of how their particular culture phrased such a reciprocal exchange).

Tell me, do you think that people were not participating in this type of exchange before being instructed to do so in Leviticus. Or is it far more likely that the concept was widespread and diverse among cultures thus predating its mention in Leviticus.

Would you like to go around again?
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23646 Aug 30, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
You're sooo pathetic. LoL. If you're not professing your love for queers, your weird attraction to children, and/or total lack of respect for elderly americans...... You're making up lies about a News sources. SMH. You're a sorry excuse for a human being, dude. Ya dumb muslim.:) You don't like them because they tell the truth about your messiah Obama.:)
Uhmmm, are the smilies because this is tongue-in-cheek?
OMTE

Kittanning, PA

#23647 Aug 30, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, are the smilies because this is tongue-in-cheek?
No.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23648 Aug 30, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, since you posed this as an open question to anyone on the forum, I am responding.
Both of us consider ourselves conservatives and your question is a valid one.
However, there are folks with limited abilities, whether they are physical or mental handicaps, or even limited intelligence, who cannot improve themselves in the work force. Some are barely able to function in life on their own through no fault of their own. I agree folks have a responsibility to improve themselves, but there are exceptions.
Conservatism also includes compassion, as we are not the ogres the libroids try to portray us as.
I know you realize this and was presenting the case strictly from an economic viewpoint, but these are my thoughts.
Those with mental or physical handicaps typically also receive social security. If they make over a certain amount on a job, they don't qualify.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23649 Aug 30, 2013
BS IS Called wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever responded to a post with something that actually has to do with the post?
He can't. His union won't allow him to have his own thoughts. If you've read one of his delusional rants, you've read them all.*rolling eyes*

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23651 Aug 30, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh boy, now you've done it, you've upset four of the deep thinkers who rely on this discredited source to bolster their fantasy construct. No wonder they call you names.
Your "village" is looking for you. You have GOT to quit chewing through the restraints!!!!!
BS IS Called

Dallas, TX

#23653 Aug 30, 2013
The Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23654 Aug 30, 2013
Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim to be so smart, tell me the REAL difference between Social Security/Medicare and European style socialism. To me the only difference is our socialism is for old people and theirs is for everyone. Don't waste my time telling me we paid for what we get with SSI and Medicare, the number don't show that to be true and you know it.
Take a look at the context and timing of that quote. She was talking about true socialism at the time she had taken leadership of her political party and the enemy party was considered a socialist party. Socialism has many levels, just as democracy does. The kind of Democracy we have and the kind that Egypt has are not the same. Modern countries that have national health care programs are not socialist countries as you try to portray them any more than we are socialist for having SSI.

Ugly Eve; first off, educate yourself if you are going to talk about the programs you are referring too.

Social Security and SSI are NOT one and the same.
The Social Security portion of your payroll tax is typically 6.2 percent of earnings up to a certain amount, which is adjusted annually (in 2012, the cap was set at $110,100). Employers also pay 6.2 percent for each employee. For a total of 12.4% for S.S.


Now consider if that employee got the 12.4% and invested in his or her name for their personal retirement.
An example would be a worker who averaged $40,000 a year over a 40 year career would pay into S.S. an average of $4,960(employee + employer contribution) a year. Assume the worker’s first year’s salary of $20k and last year’s salary of $60k, with a balance of salary increasing over the 40 years worked, equally to account for the rise in income from $20 to $60k.

That person would accumulate (with the 12.4%)$490,179 over 40 years at 4% compound interest.
That same person would accumulate $629,125 over 40 years at 5% compound interest.

Now that person retires at age 65 dies at age 80, all monies left will go to his heirs, NOT so with S.S.
Or say the person lives to 85, monies will still go to his heirs.

The average S.S. payment as of July 26, 2013 is $1,270 a month or $15,240 a year.

Let’s pretend you get $20,000 a year in S.S. for the rest of your life. At age 85, you will have received $400k from S.S.. At age 89 you will have received $480k. Only when you reach age 90 does S.S. pay more than if you had invested yourself.
Average life expectancy for Americans are men = 76, and women = 81.

If the interest rate averaged 5% or more, S.S. would never reach the level you would have saved, and all monies would go to heirs.

From a conservatives point of view, we would rather control our own money.
From a liberals point of view, you would rather let the gubmint control your money.

Therein is only one main point of difference between conservatives and liberals; as there are other many others as well.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23655 Aug 30, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Those with mental or physical handicaps typically also receive social security. If they make over a certain amount on a job, they don't qualify.

Are you sure??
I would have thought SSI.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23656 Aug 30, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, since you posed this as an open question to anyone on the forum, I am responding.
Both of us consider ourselves conservatives and your question is a valid one.
However, there are folks with limited abilities, whether they are physical or mental handicaps, or even limited intelligence, who cannot improve themselves in the work force. Some are barely able to function in life on their own through no fault of their own. I agree folks have a responsibility to improve themselves, but there are exceptions.
Conservatism also includes compassion, as we are not the ogres the libroids try to portray us as.
I know you realize this and was presenting the case strictly from an economic viewpoint, but these are my thoughts.
We are on the same page, and I did mention there could be people that had mental or physical handicaps. They should qualify for government assistance and with a minimum wage job be able to get by.
If a normal healthy person wants more money for their work, than they must have the ability, motivation, and knowledge to obtain that money.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23657 Aug 30, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugly Eve; first off, educate yourself if you are going to talk about the programs you are referring too.
Social Security and SSI are NOT one and the same.
The Social Security portion of your payroll tax is typically 6.2 percent of earnings up to a certain amount, which is adjusted annually (in 2012, the cap was set at $110,100). Employers also pay 6.2 percent for each employee. For a total of 12.4% for S.S.
Now consider if that employee got the 12.4% and invested in his or her name for their personal retirement.
An example would be a worker who averaged $40,000 a year over a 40 year career would pay into S.S. an average of $4,960(employee + employer contribution) a year. Assume the worker’s first year’s salary of $20k and last year’s salary of $60k, with a balance of salary increasing over the 40 years worked, equally to account for the rise in income from $20 to $60k.
That person would accumulate (with the 12.4%)$490,179 over 40 years at 4% compound interest.
That same person would accumulate $629,125 over 40 years at 5% compound interest.
Now that person retires at age 65 dies at age 80, all monies left will go to his heirs, NOT so with S.S.
Or say the person lives to 85, monies will still go to his heirs.
The average S.S. payment as of July 26, 2013 is $1,270 a month or $15,240 a year.
Let’s pretend you get $20,000 a year in S.S. for the rest of your life. At age 85, you will have received $400k from S.S.. At age 89 you will have received $480k. Only when you reach age 90 does S.S. pay more than if you had invested yourself.
Average life expectancy for Americans are men = 76, and women = 81.
If the interest rate averaged 5% or more, S.S. would never reach the level you would have saved, and all monies would go to heirs.
From a conservatives point of view, we would rather control our own money.
From a liberals point of view, you would rather let the gubmint control your money.
Therein is only one main point of difference between conservatives and liberals; as there are other many others as well.
Good post. What is never mentioned is that there are people that die before they ever draw one cent of their Social Security. Many people die just a fairly short time after starting to draw Social Security. What happens to that money? It stays in the General fund. Few people know that the U.S. Government has written IOU's to Social Security for over two trillion dollars. Will that money ever be paid back? No. Just keep blaming everything on the older people that paid their hard earned money into it. The old farts make easy targets thrown up by the lying politicians and news medias for the ignorant masses consumption.
Information

Nicholasville, KY

#23658 Aug 30, 2013

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23659 Aug 30, 2013
Obamas phoney IRS scandal still continues up to this moment. Obviously this administration cares nothing about the Constitution or the law of the land.
It ignores pleas and cries for Justice!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/...
Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya

Abbeville, GA

#23660 Aug 30, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>WoW! Another stupid post, by the crackhead, schizophrenic, queer General, of the new fa$$ot army. You're a moron, sissy.:)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9y_kZ_1IJwA/TS-eCLz...
You are a stupid old pussy who can only call people names! I bet you won't run your mouth like you do when people are actually in arms reach of you. You never say anything but a lot of hateful BS. So tell me what the difference is between European style medical care, or what you call socialism and SSI and Medicare???

You know you don't really know.
Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya

Abbeville, GA

#23661 Aug 30, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post. What is never mentioned is that there are people that die before they ever draw one cent of their Social Security. Many people die just a fairly short time after starting to draw Social Security. What happens to that money? It stays in the General fund. Few people know that the U.S. Government has written IOU's to Social Security for over two trillion dollars. Will that money ever be paid back? No. Just keep blaming everything on the older people that paid their hard earned money into it. The old farts make easy targets thrown up by the lying politicians and news medias for the ignorant masses consumption.
Ignorance is bliss, most get back more than they paid in, a lot more. Its not a savings account that was pain into, its another tax. SSI is going broke because the model was for the current workers to fund the retired workers. Retired workers are growing in number and will continue to grow as baby boomers retire. NOBODY owns anybody anything

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23662 Aug 30, 2013
Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss, most get back more than they paid in, a lot more. Its not a savings account that was pain into, its another tax. SSI is going broke because the model was for the current workers to fund the retired workers. Retired workers are growing in number and will continue to grow as baby boomers retire. NOBODY owns anybody anything
Ignorance is bliss. Yes, you of all people should know.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23663 Aug 30, 2013
BS IS Called wrote:
The Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
The unions have come to "collect" from Obama. They spent a lot of money on Obama to get him elected. Obama promised the unions that if they would support Obamacare, they would be able to keep their current plans and doctors if they liked them. THEN....Obama turned around and screwed the unions. They have put pressure on Obama and apparently he is thinking about caving. He is CRAZY if he does that. All h*ll will break loose with everyone else. Obama is absolutely an idiot who has NO BUSINESS being in the WH.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23664 Aug 30, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure??
I would have thought SSI.
Yes. My friend's nephew is in that situation.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23665 Aug 30, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are on the same page, and I did mention there could be people that had mental or physical handicaps. They should qualify for government assistance and with a minimum wage job be able to get by.
If a normal healthy person wants more money for their work, than they must have the ability, motivation, and knowledge to obtain that money.
Yep!

Low Education + Low Motivation = Low Pay(as well it should)

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23666 Aug 30, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure??
I would have thought SSI.
You are probably right. His mother just calls it SS. I just read a bit about SSI and my guess is that it IS SSI.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Aug 22 Carlo c 11
pillpoppers (Nov '10) Aug 16 sick 11
Local cop rides with 1%MC club (Sep '13) Aug 15 Anonymous 15
What Y'all think of District Attorney Jackie Jo... (Nov '11) Aug 12 Justice for Jerrod 102
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) Aug 10 Guilty 1,203
Family doctor recommendation in or around Bruns... Aug 8 NewToGA 1
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Jul '16 Nteri 26

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages