Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security

There are 20 comments on the Aug 19, 2012, Fox News story titled Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security. In it, Fox News reports that:

FILE: Aug. 18, 2012: Vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to a crowd at Lake Sumter Landing Market Square in The Villages, Fla.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#1600 Oct 12, 2012
Undecided Voter wrote:
I want Obama to put back 7 Billion he stole from Social Security NOW!!
What a dumb thing to say. He didn't steal anything. Maybe because he has no access to it. Its not like he has the Social Security checkbook in his desk drawer.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1601 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Could it be the government spends too much money regardless of how much the wealthy pay in taxes?Increasing taxes on the richto solve our disastrous economic problem is like giving drinking straws to the passengers on the Titanic.
So your prescription would be to cut social spending that benefit to lower and middle class such as Pell Grants, Home Mortgage interest deductions, child tax credits and Food Stamps while you would punish the rich by making them pay less in taxes, right?

This is America and we are all Americans. No one has ever said (and been taken seriously) we should not cut funding on social support programs. Can you explain why you think only those at the bottom should suffer for our sins?

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#1602 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So your prescription would be to cut social spending that benefit to lower and middle class such as Pell Grants, Home Mortgage interest deductions, child tax credits and Food Stamps while you would punish the rich by making them pay less in taxes, right?
This is America and we are all Americans. No one has ever said (and been taken seriously) we should not cut funding on social support programs. Can you explain why you think only those at the bottom should suffer for our sins?
Or better to ask, Why do the ones who benefit the most from America not pick up for what the rest can't afford to? It used to be that way for most of the last century. Also, looking at it from strictly a financial investing perspective, the social programs are a better return on the dollar since all or almost all of the money that the poor and middle class get is returned to the economy. They have to use most or all of their income on consumer goods and services. That is the opposite of what the wealthy do with it, which is "invest" it in stocks (many in foreign countries), various funds, or just sock in the bank. The wealthy also take more chances with foolish invesetments that have a higher risk of failure.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1603 Oct 12, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
Tonight biden reiterated the need to tax the rich. So I go to the IRS website to see what kind of stats they have on sources of income. The data stops in 2009. They used to keep it well updated, but nothing in 3 years.
I wonder why? Is the information that hard to come by?? Does it take that long to accumulate??
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Indivi...
Or, maybe, there really isn't that much to take from the "rich"
All they are saying is let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich, and so they would pay 3 percent more, about 34 percent. At one point in time, the rich paid over 70 percent in taxes, so going UP to 34 percent is not a lot. they have had the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for 12 years now, yet we have had the highest unemployment - 9 million laid off when Bush was in office, high unemployment under Obama from Bush's Depression, on and on it goes, so this idea that raising taxes on the rich 3 percent is a big deal, well it's not. And if it brings in over $800 billion per year like Biden said, that gets us out of deficit spending. Since we are third world now, where we have very rich and then everyone else is poor, if the rich have all of the wealth, they can easily pay 3 percent more in taxes, and if that stops us from having to borrow anymore money, that is what we need. Otherwise, we do have to stop giving people who have other incomes retired SS and Medicare. We could save those programs just by raising the tax rate on those who own the nation's wealth 3 percent. That way people would not riot over losing SS and Medicare.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1604 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Could it be the government spends too much money regardless of how much the wealthy pay in taxes?Increasing taxes on the richto solve our disastrous economic problem is like giving drinking straws to the passengers on the Titanic.
Yeah but what the Tea Party never deals with is where is the money being spent? Where does the federal budget go? How does it break down? Over 80 percent goes to Medicare/Medicaid, to Social Security and to military spending, and, in five more years 97 percent of the federal budget will go just to pay the baby boomers Social Security and Medicare. So you would have to end SS and Medicare in order to cut spending and to be able to stop borrowing money. Yet the Tea Party wants zero cuts to SS, Medicare and to military spending. You can't cut up the tiny 20 pecent of all other spending to feed and feed the big three even more money. If you don't want cuts to SS, Medicare nor to military spending, then you would have to raise taxes substantially in order to stop borrowing money.

You tea party types just blindly say "cut spending" without looking to even see where the spending is going.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1605 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, Obama bailed out GM and GM has outsourced jobs to foreign nations, 131,000 to be exact. Then Obama threw the non union GM/Delphi workers under the bus so there goes another 20,000 US jobs. Then we had over 2000 GM dealerships close with the loss of a few thousand more jobs.
Obama's job czar, Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, closed his x ray plant in Wisconsin and moved it to China.
We can't forget all that stimulus money building cars in Finland either.
Over 50,000 American businesses moved to China between 2000-2008, when Bush was president. I don't see you people saying one thing about it, and notice how the Republicans won't ever, ever mention Bush. All they can talk about is Reagan, go back over 20 years to Reagan and don't dare mention Bush. If the Repubs are this big answer, this big solution then why was Bush soooooo bad that no Republican dares mention him nor what he did?

And, the kicker is China opened up to capitalism when it saw the Soviet Union collapse. That was the end of communism. So you tea party nuts sit and go on and on about a commie threat, when communism died and that's why China and India went capitalist and opened up to manufacturing jobs, and that's why we lost our manufacturing base when Bush was president, over super cheap labor in China.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1606 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think America is spending so much time studying the philosophy of Karl Marx?
Once we get rid of Obama we will reverse course.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1607 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
So your prescription would be to cut social spending that benefit to lower and middle class such as Pell Grants, Home Mortgage interest deductions, child tax credits and Food Stamps while you would punish the rich by making them pay less in taxes, right?
This is America and we are all Americans. No one has ever said (and been taken seriously) we should not cut funding on social support programs. Can you explain why you think only those at the bottom should suffer for our sins?
Do you often put words in the mouths of others?

'Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
John F Kennedy

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
Reagan and Bush also cut taxes and tax revenue increased.

Contrast their success to Obama's trickle down poverty theory of economics..
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1608 Oct 12, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Over 50,000 American businesses moved to China between 2000-2008, when Bush was president. I don't see you people saying one thing about it, and notice how the Republicans won't ever, ever mention Bush. All they can talk about is Reagan, go back over 20 years to Reagan and don't dare mention Bush. If the Repubs are this big answer, this big solution then why was Bush soooooo bad that no Republican dares mention him nor what he did?
And, the kicker is China opened up to capitalism when it saw the Soviet Union collapse. That was the end of communism. So you tea party nuts sit and go on and on about a commie threat, when communism died and that's why China and India went capitalist and opened up to manufacturing jobs, and that's why we lost our manufacturing base when Bush was president, over super cheap labor in China.
Under George w Bush's tax cuts Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967. In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.Tax cuts work.

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#1609 Oct 12, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah but what the Tea Party never deals with is where is the money being spent? Where does the federal budget go? How does it break down? Over 80 percent goes to Medicare/Medicaid, to Social Security and to military spending, and, in five more years 97 percent of the federal budget will go just to pay the baby boomers Social Security and Medicare. So you would have to end SS and Medicare in order to cut spending and to be able to stop borrowing money. Yet the Tea Party wants zero cuts to SS, Medicare and to military spending. You can't cut up the tiny 20 pecent of all other spending to feed and feed the big three even more money. If you don't want cuts to SS, Medicare nor to military spending, then you would have to raise taxes substantially in order to stop borrowing money.
You tea party types just blindly say "cut spending" without looking to even see where the spending is going.
And they never bring up the fact that the wealthy (those making more than about 110,000) don't pay the same percentage as those who don't pay into Social Security... And social security does not come from the general fund, it has its own tax and own "account". 2/3 of discretionary spending is military, which doesn't produce anything of value. That is way too high....

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1610 Oct 12, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
Or better to ask, Why do the ones who benefit the most from America not pick up for what the rest can't afford to? It used to be that way for most of the last century. Also, looking at it from strictly a financial investing perspective, the social programs are a better return on the dollar since all or almost all of the money that the poor and middle class get is returned to the economy. They have to use most or all of their income on consumer goods and services. That is the opposite of what the wealthy do with it, which is "invest" it in stocks (many in foreign countries), various funds, or just sock in the bank. The wealthy also take more chances with foolish invesetments that have a higher risk of failure.
Agreed. A consumer driven economy needs consumers, not savers.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1611 Oct 12, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Over 50,000 American businesses moved to China between 2000-2008, when Bush was president. I don't see you people saying one thing about it, and notice how the Republicans won't ever, ever mention Bush. All they can talk about is Reagan, go back over 20 years to Reagan and don't dare mention Bush. If the Repubs are this big answer, this big solution then why was Bush soooooo bad that no Republican dares mention him nor what he did?
And, the kicker is China opened up to capitalism when it saw the Soviet Union collapse. That was the end of communism. So you tea party nuts sit and go on and on about a commie threat, when communism died and that's why China and India went capitalist and opened up to manufacturing jobs, and that's why we lost our manufacturing base when Bush was president, over super cheap labor in China.
The real kicker is while Reagan had one big tax cut, he also had one big tax increase and then several smaller ones. He practically doubled the payroll tax on the self-employed small business person.

But they won't talk about that either.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1612 Oct 12, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah but what the Tea Party never deals with is where is the money being spent? Where does the federal budget go? How does it break down? Over 80 percent goes to Medicare/Medicaid, to Social Security and to military spending, and, in five more years 97 percent of the federal budget will go just to pay the baby boomers Social Security and Medicare. So you would have to end SS and Medicare in order to cut spending and to be able to stop borrowing money. Yet the Tea Party wants zero cuts to SS, Medicare and to military spending. You can't cut up the tiny 20 pecent of all other spending to feed and feed the big three even more money. If you don't want cuts to SS, Medicare nor to military spending, then you would have to raise taxes substantially in order to stop borrowing money.
You tea party types just blindly say "cut spending" without looking to even see where the spending is going.
The option of privatizing Social Security for workers 50 and under would be quite beneficial to workers fifty and under.

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation...
One is by sword...The other is by debt."
John Adams

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1613 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once we get rid of Obama we will reverse course.
But that does not answer my question. Marxism is a philosoply, nothing more. Why are so many Americans studying it? And how do you reverse course on something that you are not doing, but studying?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1614 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that does not answer my question. Marxism is a philosoply, nothing more. Why are so many Americans studying it? And how do you reverse course on something that you are not doing, but studying?
I don't believe the writer meant we were studying it but that the government was implementing marxist philosophy.

The economist Thomas Sowell says Obama is not a socialist but he is a fascist. The difference being socialist governments take outright control of businesses while fascists do it indirectly. The fascist also takes control of businesses but leave in place those in charge so it appears as if nothing has changed and if things don't work out the fall guy is in place.

"Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism."
Frederick Augustus Voigt, Unto Cæsar (1939), p. 95.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1615 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you often put words in the mouths of others?
'Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
John F Kennedy
President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
Reagan and Bush also cut taxes and tax revenue increased.
Contrast their success to Obama's trickle down poverty theory of economics..
OK, lets play your game.

In 1938 the income tax was increased to 90%. Revenues increased from $6.5 Bil in 1940 to 43.7 Bil in 1944. That would be a 572% increase in five years.

Reagan cut taxes and revenues went from 599.3 Bil in 1981 to 1.091 Tril in 1992. A 92% increase over 12 years.

Clinton increased taxes and revenues went from 1.091 Tril in 1992 to 2.025 Tril in 2000. An increase of 86% over 8 years.

bush cut taxes and revenues went from 1.991 in 2001 to 2.105 in 2009. An increase of 5% over 8 years.

Nothing beats the tax increase to 90% in 1938 for increasing revenue. And look at all the growth we had not just from 1940 to 1944, but all the way to 1960 before President Kennedy started ruining with his tax cut.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displ...

There is no link of correlation between tax rates, revenues and growth. NONE, NADA, ZILCH in our history.

And if you really want the truth, look at the middle data columns that show the data in constant dollars.

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#1616 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the writer meant we were studying it but that the government was implementing marxist philosophy.
The economist Thomas Sowell says Obama is not a socialist but he is a fascist. The difference being socialist governments take outright control of businesses while fascists do it indirectly. The fascist also takes control of businesses but leave in place those in charge so it appears as if nothing has changed and if things don't work out the fall guy is in place.
"Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism."
Frederick Augustus Voigt, Unto Cæsar (1939), p. 95.
We are not doing that either.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1617 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once we get rid of Obama we will reverse course.
This country won't reverse course once you get rid of Obama. Bush ran up $5 trillion of debt and took down the entire housing market, the entire financial sector and almost took all of the world's economies down, he unemployed over 8 million people when the financial sector and real estate markets collapsed, which is WHY you do not see any of the Repubs mention Bush. If the world crashing, going under, the banks all going broke and everyone losing their homes and jobs is so great, so great, then vote in Repubs again. Bush tanking the U.S. was a big, huge wakeup call to put Ron Paul into office, to get rid of both parties. The Repubs' budget runs the debt up to $25 trillion in the next few years, same as the Dems' budget. Obama leaves, half the country is still the dumbed down no education tea party who cannot take the jobs they are offered due to lack of education, the nation is still obese lazy people, the country is still 26th in education, we still have half the country old tea party people who will be living off of the government and not paying taxes. What exactly do you think Romney will do to get the tea party to stop hating college and to raise their IQs and get them to stop being obese and to get them trained in computer science and in engineering so they can take the jobs they are being offered?

How is it that Bush outsourced the jobs to China and that's just fine and some answer to anything? How is the Repubs running the debt up to $25 trillion on more oil wars one bit better than Obama running the debt up to $25 trillion on welfare programs and on huge government pension promises??

You old white guys with low IQs want a one time easy answer and you can't face up to it that a rich white man took your nation down, so you made it up that Bush never did what he did, that nothing that happened because of Bush ever happened and that this black guy must have done it so you can just vote one time and fake solve the problems. You have REAL problems here - the end of cheap oil, peak oil production worldwide, the end of globalization, you need a trade war with China, you have $120 TRILLION of unpaid for promises in SS and in Medicare to the baby boomers. You have the fattest people in the world here, we are way down in education standings, we lost out on 5 million jobs due to our people not attending college. You want to believe all you have to do is listen to Fox TV and vote out Obama and someone else will fix all of this for you.

Romney said you can't expect to have everything for nothing. He said you all need to go to college or trade schools. YOu have to lose weight yourselves, go to college yourselves, send your kids to college, step up to the plate, deal with getting off of ending oil, move off of carbon energy, deal with global warming, deal with the end of globalization, take on China with a trade war. You are not tiny kids who are dependent and need the TV to tell you what to believe. Citizens are supposed to be adults who can go and find out for themselves what is wrong with their country, and, when you don't do that and when you let 3-4 people on TV do your thinking for you, and those people are not economists, not energy experts, not lawyers, not politicians, they have literally NO credentials, why are you putting the future of my country in the hands of 4 people on TV when their are 320 million people in this country and you are not looking to the scientists nor the economists, no one with credentials to tell you what is going on?? What you are doing is really, really dangerous. We could easily end up with just Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, a high school dropout and a guy with only a 4 year degree in general ed getting us into a third major war just by selling it on their radio and TV shows. YOu all need to step up to the plate and begin to solve the nation's problems yourselves.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1618 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The real kicker is while Reagan had one big tax cut, he also had one big tax increase and then several smaller ones. He practically doubled the payroll tax on the self-employed small business person.
But they won't talk about that either.
When Reagan cut taxes the tax rate was 70 percent. We have already had the Bush tax cuts for 12 years, so where are the jobs? It proves lower taxes doesn't create jobs. My god, the top tax rate is about 32 percent and they talk as if it is 70 percent when Reagan took office. And, the increase is only 3 percent on the top earners. These tea party nuts want to collect about $4 TRILLION per year in Social Security and in Medicare, yet they also want no increase in taxes. Well, if they need $4-5 trillion per year to hand out in the socialism they want, while they all say they hate socialism, then they would need huge new taxes to come up with that money.

The problem is ALL the Tea Party knows about is Hannity says not to raise his taxes 3 percent, and Fox keeps selling it that lowering their taxes even more will somehow create jobs, yet we have had the Bush tax cuts for 12 years now.

Someone should write a book about their encounters with the Tea Party, how their IQs are literally 90 points, about how they are functionally illiterate. Someone should point out how they can't think, how everything they say is talking points from Fox that makes zero sense. The tea party is the group who is after massive socialism, yet claims to hate socialism. They need tons of new taxes generated to give them the socialism they want, yet they chant "no new taxes." They never even look to see where the money is spent. It's like subhumans without brains repeating stuff from billionaire war profiteers on Fox and they do not have one clue what those people on Fox are doing to them, nor one clue about one real thing. I would love to write a book explaining how they think, or, more like, how they are sooooooo unable to think. I don't think either MSNBC nor Fox has one clue how dumbed down the majority of the nation really is. And imagine people that stupid not turning into a third world country, trying to still be a super power. It's an impossibility.

I think the rich abandoned this country when they saw how dumbed down 95 percent of the population is. They can't ever take good paying jobs. This country is just waiting to fall over and go full on third world.

Another crazy thing is how the tea party imagines it is somehow independent people. IN reality, they spent all of their money and they are ONLY after them being able to live off of the government retired, and they are totally dependent on Fox News for what to think and what to say. They are the farthest thing from independent people. It's like they are the opposite of what they say they are on every level, and it all stems from the very low intelligence of that group of people. Someone should write a book about them and expose the low, low IQ of the majority of the American people, put the reality of this mess out for the world to see.

Since: Apr 12

Hunt Valley, MD

#1619 Oct 12, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>This country won't reverse course once you get rid of Obama. Bush ran up $5 trillion of debt and took down the entire housing market, the entire financial sector and almost took all of the world's economies down, he unemployed over 8 million people when the financial sector and real estate markets collapsed, which is WHY you do not see any of the Repubs mention Bush. If the world crashing, going under, the banks all going broke and everyone losing their homes and jobs is so great, so great, then vote in Repubs again. Bush tanking the U.S. was a big, huge wakeup call to put Ron Paul into office, to get rid of both parties. The Repubs' budget runs the debt up to $25 trillion in the next few years, same as the Dems' budget. Obama leaves, half the country is still the dumbed down no education tea party who cannot take the jobs they are offered due to lack of education, the nation is still obese lazy people, the country is still 26th in education, we still have half the country old tea down, so you made it up that Bush never did what he did, that nothing that happened because of Bush ever happened and that this black guy must have done it so you can just vote one time and fake solve the problems. You have REAL problems here - the end of cheap oil, peak oil production worldwide, the end of globalization, you need a trade war with China, you have $120 TRILLION of unpaid for promises in SS and in Medicare to the baby boomers. You have the fattest people in the world here, we are way down in education standings, we lost out on 5 million jobs due to our people not attending college. You want to believe all you have to do is listen to Fox TV and vote out Obama and someone else will fix all of this for you.
Romney said you can't expect to have everything for nothing. He said you all need to go to college or trade schools. YOu have to lose weight yourselves, go to college yourselves, send your kids to college, step up to the plate, deal with getting off of ending oil, move off of carbon energy, deal with global warming, deal with the end of globalization, take on China with a trade war. You are not tiny kids who are dependent and need the TV to tell you what to believe. Citizens are supposed to be adults who can go and find out for themselves what is wrong with their country, and, when you don't do that and when you let 3-4 people on TV do your thinking for you, and those people are not economists, not energy experts, not lawyers, not politicians, they have literally NO credentials, why are you putting the future of my country in the hands of 4 people on TV when their are 320 million people in this country and you are not looking to the scientists nor the economists, no one with credentials to tell you what is going on?? What you are doing is really, really dangerous. We could easily end up with just Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, a high school dropout and a guy with only a 4 year degree in general ed getting us into a third major war just by selling it on their radio and TV shows. YOu all need to step up to the plate and begin to solve the nation's problems yourselves.
If Romney takes the helm its full speed ahead.. Staight in the iceberg. He will finish off what Bush started and it won't be pretty... He cares nothing for the people of this country, not that Obama is Mother Teresa.

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.

The Villages Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Central Florida needs to break the obesity cycle (Jul '13) 1 hr HELL ON EARTH 166
crime scene tape 12 hr Peter McMurray 1
Truth About FOX Fri Brad 31
Review: Veterans Carpet Care, Inc. Apr 23 Joshua 1
God Apr 23 Joe 16
The Villages-News Apr 21 Megan 1
Totv political forum Apr 20 Joe 68
More from around the web

The Villages People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]