Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
BS IS Called

Dallas, TX

#23637 Aug 30, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
You are perhaps a "cat" could understand your post.
Unfortunately for you, Earth,(unlike Right Wing Wacko Planet- which apparently contains an abundance of felines), is inhabited by humans.
A
Have you ever responded to a post with something that actually has to do with the post?
BS IS Called

Dallas, TX

#23638 Aug 30, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true government teat-sucking Right Winger.
Keep praying we taxpayers provide free medical care for Right Wingers, not old enough for government medical care on Medicare, or really old enough nursing home beds provided via government Medicaid.
Oh wait... When Right Wingers keep their lips firmly attached to the government teat... That ain't Welfare.
Have you ever responded to a post with something that actually has to do with the post

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#23639 Aug 30, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
No....
The point is that Right Wingers can't always have it both ways, and I call them on it.
They can't slurp up government benefits and services and whine about people who slurp up government benefits and services;
They can't slurp up government provided medical care and whine about people who slurp up government provided medical care;
They can't claim to be all personally responsible and assure others of irresponsibility, while whining about government attempts to force people to be personally repairable for their medical bills;
They can't enjoy all the tax breaks, subsidies, and cuts that constitute welfare, and whine that they are anti-welfare;
They can't claim to be financially responsible while supporting the Right Wing policies that exploded the deficit and doubled and tripled the debt;
They can't claim to be financially responsible while attacking the Administration that has cut the Right Wing deficit in half, brought us out of the Bush Great Recession, saved the American Auto industry, and doubled the Dow;
They can't claim to be concerned about "Big" government, while supporting Right Wingers who created the UnPatriot Act, the wiretapping and eavesdropping on Americans, and illegal kidnapping and assassinating of Americans.
They say hypocrisy is the necessary evil that makes democracy work - but it needs to be called out.
More ad-libbing by the libroids. Ah, the irony continues...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#23640 Aug 30, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I am supposed to work till I drop dead on the job while you visit exotic places drinking wine and eating steaks, which you brag about,all at the governments expense. That sounds fair.
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Why don't you open a McDonalds and hire your employees for $15.00 an hour? That way you might have one broken leg to stand on.
Your talk is cheap as long as someone else is paying the bills isn't it? You are a true Democrat.
"Your talk is cheap as long as someone else is paying the bills isn't it? You are a true Democrat."

+1 Reminds me of the Margaret Thatcher quote about Socialism being great until you run out of other people's money.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23641 Aug 30, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
More fun facts about Right Wing Wacko "World Nut Daily."
Here's a few of the more egregious examples of WND's bogus reporting over the years:
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.
Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya

Dahlonega, GA

#23642 Aug 30, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your talk is cheap as long as someone else is paying the bills isn't it? You are a true Democrat."
+1 Reminds me of the Margaret Thatcher quote about Socialism being great until you run out of other people's money.
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.
BS IS Called

Dallas, TX

#23643 Aug 30, 2013
OMTE

Hahira, GA

#23644 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.
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...
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

Hahira, GA

#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

Dawsonville, 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

Dawsonville, 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

Alto, GA

#23658 Aug 30, 2013

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
News Coast Guard Sent to Georgia Coast for Teens Mis... 1 hr Scotty fish 1
News Remembering slain Rolonda Roberts (Sep '07) Sat annomous 62
Jeannie Stamey Jul 19 Danny Noonan 2
Review: Hooper Endodontics - Jason T Hooper DDS (Jun '11) Jul 6 Sherry Gale 2
considering moving to the Brunswick area Jul 5 Anonymous 12
Best Fishing Spots Jun 28 Coffee 1
Jekyll Island Music Thread (Nov '14) Jun '15 Musikologist 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages