And you ASSume I don't want to improve on anything,why?? Because I believe taking from someone who has and giving to someone who has not is a total discouragement for both parties? Whatever, SIB. If you are so darn anxious to take from the haves, start handing it over to the have nots, but keep your hands out of my pocketbook. Believe me, I am much better at knowing what I need than you or your nanny state friends will ever be. Try encouraging others to succeed instead of taking from those who have already succeeded so those who have not have no need to even try.<quoted text>
"Life wasn't designed to be fair", and you know this how? Are you now claiming to be God? I would be very interesting to see how you came to KNOW life wasn't designed to be fair. It isn't? Yes that's true. But I can show you innumerable things, situations, etc. even that weren't designed to be one way but were turned into something much better. Because someone had the will to make it better.
You have just proven you are the perfect example of a conservative by not understanding and most importantly not wanting to improve on anything. Remember the root word of progressive is progress. While the root word of conservative is con. Know how to use a dictionary?
#267 Jan 20, 2013
#268 Jan 20, 2013
Oh and there was a "conversation" was being had with me. Just like the one you are having with me, right? Well proper construct of words is, if conservative has the word, and it's spelled serve, con precedes serve so it becomes con/against serve...against serve.
Anyway now that that little diatribe has been settled. Thanks for the "conversation"...as you define it.
Oh, and you might want to learn what a conversation actually consists of. And the difference between a conversation and a diatribe.
#270 Jan 20, 2013
And you ASSume I am in favor of a nanny state. You are so concerned that you won't get everything you deserve from someone else; no matter what you think there is a long list of those you have gotten what you do have from someone else. Oh but YOU worked for it. There is no doubt that there are many more than you that have worked so much harder than you have while getting less for it. All because you are so self absorbed to believe you deserve what you have "worked for" while those who have worked harder don't if they don't have it.
It's most unfortunate that I have to continually repeat myself because there are those like you that refuse to absorb the "nanny state" you are in favor of is the corporate welfare (nanny state) that far exceeds the social welfare nanny state. But then you perceive you have your jobs because a company is supplying it and not the government. What you don't understand is the government is supplying more jobs through welfare to companies through tax payer dollars. Where a great share of that money goes into top level management salaries and bonuses instead of the local grocery store, gas station etc., etc. where all the social welfare slackers bank their money.
#271 Jan 20, 2013
No you didn't say I was having a conversation with you. You were accusing me of not having a conversation with Really when it was not a conversation defined by the insult toward me at the end. Sticking your 1/2cent in where it had NOTHING to do with you so you decide you can just go off on me. AGAIN concerning NOTHING that had ANYTHING to do with you.
Me living in a basement? And you know that how? Chances are good that your basement could fit in my family room with the rest of my house left over. And don't even bother now trying to make me seem like some kind of an elitist when it was you who started throwing around trash you know NOTHING about.
#272 Jan 20, 2013
[I] figured I'd just add this Really. I will jump off my "soapbox" the moment I hear and see the right make as big a fuss and do as much to end the corporate nanny state as they have the social nanny state. I have more understanding of nannyism (ya I know, not a real word) toward people who get it and barely scrape by, and at that support the local businesses for what they need to survive, than I do for the corporate and wealthiest who really don't need it except to increase their wealth even more so they can have more opulent housing, most expensive cars...highest of lifestyles and to have that much more to pass down to their kids, grand-kids, great-grand-kids and farther so THEY don't have to worry about working for their own lifestyles.
I would rather use the tenet of giving to the poor through my taxes than I would giving to the wealthiest who don't need for anything more than to increase their wealth at others expense.
#274 Jan 20, 2013
Here it is Steelie.
The concluding paragraph:
"So where is the best place to live? For the past 30 years, a U.S.-based magazine, International Living, has compiled a quality-of-life index based on cost of living, culture and leisure, economy, environment, freedom, health, infrastructure, safety and climate. France tops the list for the fifth year running. The United States comes in 7th."
For those who would say, it's a blog. It's Reuters. Not exactly some person somewhere sitting down pontificating on their solely subjective opinion.
#275 Jan 20, 2013
"I pointing out that it is hard for anybody to have a conversation with you when you talk such nonsense."
Based on what I was saying to Really, not you. Unless Really is your other personality.
"Oh you post a message on a public forum and in your little dictatorship thought process you want to control who is eligible to reply. Too funny!"
You don't have to though figure you are the one included in those specific responses. Again, unless Really is your other personality.
I am the first and original SeenItBefore on here and you can confuse me with the imposter as much as it makes you feel worthy.
Enough of your %$#@!* blah blah *%&$@ blah blah blah &#^@&$ blah blah!
#277 Jan 20, 2013
yeah, it's Reuters whose headquarters are overseas. Whatever, SIB.
#278 Jan 20, 2013
But of course you missed the company that did the ranking is a U.S. based company.
#279 Jan 20, 2013
Here's why so many more retirees are choosing to move overseas for their retirement rather than stay in the grandest country on the planet. Sad, very sad.
"What's driving them abroad? Money -- or lack of it. Americans' confidence in their ability to afford a comfortable retirement is at historically low levels, according to this year's Retirement Confidence Survey, conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Only 14% of workers said they were "very confident" they would have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, according to the survey.
The loss of confidence is understandable: According to a study by the Federal Reserve published June 12, the global financial crisis erased 18 years of gains for the median U.S. household's net worth. From 2007 to 2010, the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. Home Price Index dropped 23%. Retirement accounts -- important supplements to Social Security and other types of retirement income -- were also badly hit. During the same three-year period, the Standard and Poor's 500 Index lost 14% of its value."
"One of the most pressing financial concerns facing prospective retirees is whether they will have enough money to pay for medical and long-term care expenses. Health care costs have risen rapidly over the last decade and show no signs of abating. A 65-year-old couple retiring in 2012 is estimated to need $240,000 to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses -- the costs not covered by Medicare -- throughout retirement, according to the latest retiree health care costs estimate calculated by Fidelity Investments. This represents a 50% increase from 2002, when the estimate was $160,000."
Though further in the article it does point out what may be some unexpected drawbacks.
#280 Jan 20, 2013
Oh, and I forgot. So does democratic have rat in it. Which means you must also be against a democratic form of government.
Since: Feb 10
#281 Jan 20, 2013
I don't get the point of your post. The goal of the left is to have as few people working for private (greedy) business and more people receiving money from the government, either as a monthly payment for income or as a paycheck as a government employee.
You and the President don't like the 1%, but the biggest group in the 1% aren't corporate CEO's, but those who work as doctors, entrepreneurs, and managers. So why are you suprised that these people leave when you tell them to F*** OFF!?
And you want to increase their taxes so they have less in retirement so that....what, the 18 year old with two kids and no high school degree can have a better cell phone?
And we talked about this earlier that you are ok with SS going under, yet for lots of folks that's their retirement.
So which is it? Do you want a strong "Reagan Recovery" or our current strong "Liberal Recovery"? We've been in the best recovery for more than 3 years that we'll ever get from a liberal POV. And given normal history we should go into another recession in a few years as a matter of course (no blame, just history). So for these retirees, when 2010 is as good as it gets, what are you going to do?
#282 Jan 20, 2013
WHAT???? WHAT THE F**C WAS THAT? Do you study up on how to totally misconstrue what I'm getting at so you get into such a convoluted explanation of your own so it does nothing but get into another long drawn out response that you can then again get into long drawn out diatribes against? You don't get the point of my post, any of them actually, so you arbitrarily make up accusations that are misleading?
You only contrive I want SS to go under.
Do I think the economy is grossly lopsided? Yes I do. And so does every reasonable economist out there that is concerned with the economic health of the entire economy. That just wouldn't include you.
Hate the 1%. B FCN S. I won't even bother to try and explain it to you AGAIN because you'll just bastardize it again, and again and again.
The Reagan Recovery? I already told you it happened because he realized his policies were screwing up the economy and he raised taxes back up 11 times. But you wouldn't understand the correlation between economic recovery and increasing taxes to a responsible level. You just take it as only lowering taxes causes recovery. How's that been working so far? Not well AT ALL. How you can compare the last three years as the best recovery we've had out of the longest recession this country has EVER EVER experienced is laughable? Oh, but the recession ended in 2009. Be sure to wait up for the tooth fairy. Seeing as you haven't noticed the recovery we have been experiencing hasn't been from any conservative actions.
Judas freaken priest who do you get to write this s***t for you?
What am I going to do? That's none of your business. If I was stupid enough to tell you you'd find a way to twist it beyond any realistic recognition simply because you enjoy being such a jackass.
#283 Jan 20, 2013
Oh and by the way, your link is a dead one. No surprise coming from you. You can't even be bothered to make sure to back check it. If you posted it it has to be good...cough cough
#284 Jan 21, 2013
Good job FL Beaver...when you get her using expletives in a post, you truly have her undies in a bunch. By the way, calling her on her double speak? That's a sure way to get yourself cussed at and called names. She's not a "liberal" though, but a progressive. Progressives like "progress"..yeah, take from the haves and give to the have nots, that's their type of "progess". And unemployment is still above 7% and it will go up this year even more.
#285 Jan 21, 2013
And just which unemployment rate are you talking about? State or national? Well it actually doesn't matter. Just who do you, and your hero Beaver, think is "in charge" of who and how many are employed? It's the private sector. And while you're [both] believing it's the private sector that "creates jobs" you still want to hold onto the idea somehow the government controls that.
Well look who is actually "dependent" on the government. It HAS TO BE business. And don't give me this crap about it's because of government taxation. I've been around long enough to have experienced a VERY stable economy and unprecedented growth in this country when the Federal tax rate on business and the wealthiest was 91%. And then down to 75%. Now that it's down to 35% it's brought them all to a halt? The two of you have a REAL problem with making correlations. I've been around long enough to SEE that taxes on inheritance and capital gains had little affect on the overall economy. And in keeping with what the Founding Fathers saw as the difference between earned and unearned income. But then you both have no clue about the difference between the tax burden on people who actually earn their incomes and those who it's gifted to. And yes that difference includes those who are at the top of the earned income scale.
And it doesn't matter how many times I have shown you you still refuse to believe the most welfare handed out in this country is to the wealthiest and corporations, both domestic AND foreign, who don't need it for anything other than bloated pay checks and bonuses at the top management levels and money changer companies.
Here's a little factoid for ya einstein. China subsidizes their industries more heavily than we do...if it a Chinese company. If the company is a foreign one, NOPE. And if it's a Chinese company partnered with a foreign company, NOPE. While we subsidize even the foreign companies doing business here. But then you just love the idea of our tax money subsidizing companies because they'll give you a sub-standard wage. Glad it's working for ya.
You want to take away the government benefits people have paid for through their life times. PAID for Social Security benefits. AND here's new information for you. Those Medicare benefits you all want reduced to pay for the national debt that IS NOT part of the Federal Budget. People receiving Medicare pay a premium EVERY MONTH for that INSURANCE. But you back woods goobers believe it's some kind of gift that's increasing the national debt. Well how about you pay your health insurance premiums and we'll all take the benefits of away from you but you still have to pay the premiums.
And the Social Security you malcontents are so twisted up about? Reagan DOUBLED the payroll tax/FICA to not only pay for our parents benefits but also pay ahead for our own. Most of us didn't have a huge problem with that because we saw the fiscal responsibility in it. Something, fiscal responsibility, you half wits can't grasp. And because you don't know FICA stands for Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. INSURANCE! Got it?
And what you call "double speak" is because you have no actual concept of cause and affect.
The two of you are gigantic douche bags that have no clue what's going on around you. All you can see the the affect on your own situation without a real clue on how that's happening.
#286 Jan 21, 2013
And one more thing. I went through the times when companies would pilfer employees pensions promised, then go bankrupt, which meant the employees were just out-of-luck, then be in the forefront to get the government to pay on those pensions, greatly reduced. So ya the big corporations will save us all if only we relieve them of responsibility to a system they made their millions+ profits off.
Just like recently Hostess goes bankrupt but the CEO gave himself a 300% raise WHILE filing their second bankruptcy.
Since: Feb 10
#287 Jan 21, 2013
About the link. Worked fine for me but if you do a search for:
The Top 1 Percent: What Jobs Do They Have? You will find it. It's a NYT article. According to the NYT "With 376,076 members, the largest single group in the 1 percent are those who listed their occupation as a manager" Physicians with 192,268 households looks to make up a big sector. Lawyers, sales, and many other occupations also have folks in the 1%. Even teachers and engineers are part of the 1%. They all arenít CEOs.
You act like those in the 1% inherited it or that it was given to them. Thatís wrong. According to the IRS, 25% of those in the 1% werenít there 10 years ago. And 25% of those in the group now wonít be there in 10 years. Just as you and I have moved up and down the income scale, so do they. If we had made different choices we could have been part of the 1% today. There was nothing that stopped us except ourselves. Same with our kids, they could at some point be part of that group if they so choose. See, anyone can be part of the 1% if they are willing to do what it takes. Most arenít. Conversely, it is also easy to be part of the bottom group if one is willing to make similar choices. Being part of the bottom group requires a lot less work and effort, which is why there are a lot more folks in the bottom income levels than the top. But being part of the top 1% isnít something that is only open to certain people. Almost anyone, regardless of color, gender, where they start or anything else can be well off financially. Anyone who does just seven things can be part of the 1%. Conversely, do the opposite and the more likely one will end up in the bottom group.
1. Stay in school, study hard and graduate with 3.5 or better.
2. Go to college and study business, pre-law or pre-med
3. Go to grad school and graduate with a 3.5 or better.
4. Work 60+ hours/week until you retire
5. Marry someone who does 1-4 and stay married.
6. Donít have kids until well after marriage.
7. Live on one salary and invest the other salary.
We have an income inequality in this country because the number of people choosing to cruise through life rather than work through life is growing faster than those who are working hard.
I'm in the middle because my wife and I made middle choices. I got my graduate degree and worked hard but she stayed home to care for the kids. A choice we made and understood that by her staying home we were giving up things, but they were just things.(If you really want to guarantee being in the 1%, for #6 just make it Don't have kids. Two professionals working 60+ hours/week with no kids investing 1/2 their income will be very well off.
Everyone of us is where we are today because of choices we made. And no one is where they are at because of choices made for them or because there were opportunities that they were not allowed to take. And if someone doesn't like where they are, they need to change their choices. Might not be easy, but if they don't want to change their choices then I should not be forced to support their bad choices.
Since: Feb 10
#288 Jan 21, 2013
"Well look who is actually "dependent" on the government. It HAS TO BE business." If that is true than if we close up every business, from the farmer to the truckers, from the manufacturers to the malls, government will continue to function for hundreds of years without any business to tax.
The flip side is of course that if you are wrong, then we could eliminate all government and there would still be businesses.
Which ever can be eliminated while still allowing the other to continue would be the dependent one. Thus, methinks you are wrong.
#290 Jan 21, 2013
Too much talking when we are being taxed too much
Add your comments below
|College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13)||1 hr||stewart scott||2,512|
|Review: Motorhomes 2 Go||4 hr||Jennie||3|
|Local News Women (Apr '09)||6 hr||Wyn||2,402|
|trump triumphant!||Sat||Idea Maker||9|
|Food Town closing temporarily||Sat||lamber kroger sho...||2|
|Two DNR rangers charged with poaching in Oceana... (Apr '08)||Aug 27||Fabian Vasquez||88|
|Bike licenses for road maintenance||Aug 26||knobhead||5|
Find what you want!
Search Grand Rapids Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC