Geithner predicts Republicans will accept higher tax rates

Dec 2, 2012 Full story: Reuters 247

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pressed Republicans to offer a plan to increase revenues and cut government spending, and predicted they would agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest to secure a deal by year-end to avoid the "fiscal cliff." In a blitz of appearances on five Sunday morning talk shows, Geithner insisted that tax rates on the ... (more)

Full Story
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

#178 Dec 4, 2012
au contraire wrote:
Sounds a lot like Obama. He must have been born in the desert section of Kenya. You know No mans land. He just can't man up.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#179 Dec 4, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm doing my part too..last night I keyed a libs hybrid at Starbucks, then went inside to tease him about it, and see what kind of man he was...the place was full of ponytailed ex-hippies, but I found him, he was sitting there in his birkenstocks, sipping a double espresso cappucino latte and bashing Bush on the wifi. When I told him about his car, he fainted and soiled himself. tough guy.
Good work!!! Starbucks is a natural haven for the moocher and psuedointellectual. These cheapskates will spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee and then shamelessly hog an entire table for hours "pretending" to be studying with their laptops open. Of course, the laptop will have an Obama sticker or peace sign sticker on the back. Never an American flag. These moochers
are well versed in Marx, Nomsky, Alinsky and their theories on why they are entitled to other people's money. Just don't ask them about unalienable rights, free market capitalism and personal responsibility. They feel like real revolutionaries because earlier in the day they participated in a nude protest in front of a Baby Furniture store or courageously defended the rights of a 14 year old to have an abortion withoout parental consent by defecating or urinating somewhere. Of course Starbucks eventually will close. Then these disgruntled losers are forced back into the basement of their parents house. Here, they must consent to their parents rules if they want to keep their internet, cell phone and use of the Saab.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#180 Dec 4, 2012
American heroes part 6

Jamal wakes up bright and early today. It is 2:00 pm. Time to go to work. He is the man of the house and has to provide for his extended family or at least pocket enough for those rims. He looks out the window of the housing project apartment that he doesn't own and looks upon a world of opportunity provided by taxpayer dollars. The courtyard this Monday is brimming with commerce. That BMW with North Carolina plates has just pulled up so the pharmacy is open. His boss is expecting him. After a quick shave and defecating in the stairwell he puts on his work clothes, a Celtics Jersey and his Air Jordans, and grabs his semi-automatic. Professionalism is everything in the business world. After his work day, which consists of poisoning the rest of his community with illegal drugs, fine tuning his raps, and shooting hoops he makes five different stops throughout the utopian paradise created by liberals called the housing project. Dodging gunfire and loose basketballs is tricky business but nobody is going to keep him from spending quality time with all his girlfriends and his and their kids. Someone has to make sure they got their checks this week from the taxpayer and they are taken care of. In fact, money is tight, so he is seriously considering having another kid. What better way to begin the courtship the old fashioned way with one of the lucky members of his concubine than a bag of weed and a bottle of Wild Turkey. She'll never say no! What lady could resisit? This responsible couple has crunched the numbers-the extra benefits provided by the taxpayer will be enough to get the 70 inch flatscreen and maybe feed everybody. He is so thankful for all the liberal policies that have given so him much. Now he needs more. Can't you spare a little more of your tax dollars so this wonderful story can continue.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#181 Dec 4, 2012
Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.
Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.
Based on this study; Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and the rest of the over 250 Founding Fathers were intellectually inferior to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I would say your study is suspect.
This is what they understood.
"Sharing" your resources with lazy and irresponsible nonproducers is counterproductive and is a waste of valuable resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Being forced to "share" your resources by a redistribution of wealth scheme ultimately results in the producers producing less and a breakdown in civil society. Sharing is a moral choice of the individual which is not to be compelled. Those with no resources get a free ride. They have no incentive to produce and therefore nothing to share and they sap the incentive of those that produce. Eventually, everyone is equally miserable.
Being secure in your private property is the cornerstone of liberty. The Founding Fathers understood there could be no liberty without property rights being secure. It wasn't a communal property right they were talking about but an individual property right. The man that works the land is the owner of the fruits of his labor. His labor and skill have produced something of value-that is his and his alone. An individual that exerted no effort in creating that product cannot morally or legally lay a claim to it. No one has a "right" to the property of another. Free market capitalism is "evolutionary novel" and has created more prosperity and freedom than other ideology or system of government yet devised.
The Founders would disagree with the results of the study you offer-a study most likely conducted by radical progressives. The real world where socialism has failed time after time throughout history has proven whose ideas are superior.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#182 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on this study; Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and the rest of the over 250 Founding Fathers were intellectually inferior to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I would say your study is suspect.
This is what they understood.
"Sharing" your resources with lazy and irresponsible nonproducers is counterproductive and is a waste of valuable resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Being forced to "share" your resources by a redistribution of wealth scheme ultimately results in the producers producing less and a breakdown in civil society. Sharing is a moral choice of the individual which is not to be compelled. Those with no resources get a free ride. They have no incentive to produce and therefore nothing to share and they sap the incentive of those that produce. Eventually, everyone is equally miserable.
Being secure in your private property is the cornerstone of liberty. The Founding Fathers understood there could be no liberty without property rights being secure. It wasn't a communal property right they were talking about but an individual property right. The man that works the land is the owner of the fruits of his labor. His labor and skill have produced something of value-that is his and his alone. An individual that exerted no effort in creating that product cannot morally or legally lay a claim to it. No one has a "right" to the property of another. Free market capitalism is "evolutionary novel" and has created more prosperity and freedom than other ideology or system of government yet devised.
The Founders would disagree with the results of the study you offer-a study most likely conducted by radical progressives. The real world where socialism has failed time after time throughout history has proven whose ideas are superior.
A case study to verify your point is to look at the settlers at Plymouth Rock. They tried the social experiment to their near destruction.

William Bradford wrote:
“‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.’

These "progressives" are trying to reinvent Plymouth as if it would work today any better than it ever has. Just look at the generational welfare of today as proof of the Plymouth pudding.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#183 Dec 4, 2012
... and for the record, Bradford and the settlers ended the socialist experiment early on.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#184 Dec 4, 2012
Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...
While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.
Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
Excellent cut and paste! Where in the real world have your ideas of shared wealth and communal property rights actually worked? Cuba? China? Russia? The Housing Project?
The liberals of today are more accurately described as progressives-more akin to Lenin, Marx and Stalin and are a far cry from the classical liberalism of our Founding Fathers.
The liberals are the masterminds and they alone will determine who will get what and who has too much. Nothing belongs to the individual-everything belongs to the state. They have little faith in the individual and so they marginalize him. They make him dependent to exert control. They take his property and banish faith as it is a distraction and inferior to their God-the state. These tyrants believe that the rights of man derive not from God, but from the state and the state alone. They confer and take away rights. They create needs and wants that must be fufilled for the nonproducers by the producers. They will order their society to guarantee equal results, outcomes and misery. The more liberty you surrender the more security you will be promised. Promises that slowly entice the people to give away their liberty and freedom for tyranny.
Have you no shame? Trying to intellectualize and thus rationalize stealing. You are pathetic. You envy success and feel entitled to things you have not earned.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#185 Dec 4, 2012
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
A case study to verify your point is to look at the settlers at Plymouth Rock. They tried the social experiment to their near destruction.
William Bradford wrote:
“‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.’
These "progressives" are trying to reinvent Plymouth as if it would work today any better than it ever has. Just look at the generational welfare of today as proof of the Plymouth pudding.
Excellent example. The whole purpose of my "American Heroes" series-was to be as brutal as possible. Mean and ugly. It is difficult to belittle anyone that believes in hard work and personal responsibility. It is difficult to make the argument that what you earn does not belong to you but instead belongs to another. Personal responsibility is missing in the liberals lexicon.

Political correctness be damned. "American Heroes" are painful examples of the losers and miscreants that liberal ideaology creates, glorifies and is too eager to sustain on the back of the producers of society. The ungrateful animals that I mock feel entitled to your money. They demand more of it. It belongs to them before it belongs to you. This should make you angry. You should resist their attempts to label you as heartless and without compassion. Compassion is an individual moral choice to be made by the individual alone and not by someone else on behalf of the individual. I could care less what these jealous sloths think of me.

The truth of progressivism is moral decay, dependence on the state, a destruction of personal responsibility, rewarding irresponsible behavior, contempt for the individual and private property and the rationalization of stealing through their scheme of redistribution of wealth.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#186 Dec 4, 2012
Far Away wrote:
... and for the record, Bradford and the settlers ended the socialist experiment early on.
Isn't it amazing how quickly they were able to identify a failing idea? They cut their losses and moved on. Socialism doen't work. Utopia cannot be created on earth. The human condition is such that there will always be moochers and lazy nonproducers in every society. They understood that moochers,slackers and nonproducers
were undermining their settlement.

It quickly became-you want to eat-you work. You want things-you earn them. You don't have the privelege of being lazy in civilized society. Talk about creating an incentive to get people out of bed. Tell that to a liberal or a welfare queen. They believe they should eat and someone else must feed them. You owe them the fruits of your labor-after all they feel you have too much. Miserable envious creatures.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

#187 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Good work!!! Starbucks is a natural haven for the moocher and psuedointellectual. These cheapskates will spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee and then shamelessly hog an entire table for hours "pretending" to be studying with their laptops open. Of course, the laptop will have an Obama sticker or peace sign sticker on the back. Never an American flag. These moochers
are well versed in Marx, Nomsky, Alinsky and their theories on why they are entitled to other people's money. Just don't ask them about unalienable rights, free market capitalism and personal responsibility. They feel like real revolutionaries because earlier in the day they participated in a nude protest in front of a Baby Furniture store or courageously defended the rights of a 14 year old to have an abortion withoout parental consent by defecating or urinating somewhere. Of course Starbucks eventually will close. Then these disgruntled losers are forced back into the basement of their parents house. Here, they must consent to their parents rules if they want to keep their internet, cell phone and use of the Saab.
Do you actually read what you post?

How can somebody be a 'moocher' if they are paying for their $5.00 coffee? IF they were 'mooching' Starbucks would be giving it to them free of charge because they asked for it, Starbucks is not doing that.

Which leads to my second point about your post if the 'moochers' are paying $5.00 per coffee, it is highly unlikely that Starbucks will "eventually close." You aren't too up on business sense are you? If a person is paying the price you ask for, the company (Starbucks) in this case is making money and therefore is able to keep their doors open.

Here endith the lesson.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

#188 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent example. The whole purpose of my "American Heroes" series-was to be as brutal as possible. Mean and ugly. It is difficult to belittle anyone that believes in hard work and personal responsibility. It is difficult to make the argument that what you earn does not belong to you but instead belongs to another. Personal responsibility is missing in the liberals lexicon.
Political correctness be damned. "American Heroes" are painful examples of the losers and miscreants that liberal ideaology creates, glorifies and is too eager to sustain on the back of the producers of society. The ungrateful animals that I mock feel entitled to your money. They demand more of it. It belongs to them before it belongs to you. This should make you angry. You should resist their attempts to label you as heartless and without compassion. Compassion is an individual moral choice to be made by the individual alone and not by someone else on behalf of the individual. I could care less what these jealous sloths think of me.
The truth of progressivism is moral decay, dependence on the state, a destruction of personal responsibility, rewarding irresponsible behavior, contempt for the individual and private property and the rationalization of stealing through their scheme of redistribution of wealth.
Well you have certainly proved yourself to be both mean and ugly.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#190 Dec 4, 2012
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually read what you post?
How can somebody be a 'moocher' if they are paying for their $5.00 coffee? IF they were 'mooching' Starbucks would be giving it to them free of charge because they asked for it, Starbucks is not doing that.
Which leads to my second point about your post if the 'moochers' are paying $5.00 per coffee, it is highly unlikely that Starbucks will "eventually close." You aren't too up on business sense are you? If a person is paying the price you ask for, the company (Starbucks) in this case is making money and therefore is able to keep their doors open.
Here endith the lesson.
Dummy. They may pay $5.00 for a coffee but doing so shouldn't allow you to hold court for 4 hours while other paying customers have to stand. They "mooch" by costing Starbucks potential customers. They feel "entitled" to stay well beyond the amount of time most customers with manners would after buying one coffee.
Taking up a table for an entire night to squeeze every nickel out of a $5.00 coffee is a form of mooching. Doing so probably prevents another customer that would have bought a coffee and would like to sit down to enjoy it to go elsewhere. Would you rather have many potential customers that are willing to buy a coffee leave your establishment because no seating is available or cater to the customer that spends little and feels entitled to linger all night. The liberal with no manners lingers.

Yes, Starbucks "eventually will close" at the end of the business day forcing the hippie to go home.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#191 Dec 4, 2012
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you have certainly proved yourself to be both mean and ugly.
Mean and ugly is the reality of the liberal agenda. Lazy irresponsible slobs that never take personal responsibility exist in the world and they feel entitled to live off the hard work of others. They are sickening. They should not be subsidized. Are you saying I have a responsibility to give them my money anyway without a corresponding obligation on their part to at least act responsibly and modify their behavior?
I should subsidize their reckless behavior and poor choices? I don't think so. What is mean and ugly is not calling them out for what they are. Re-enforcing the belief that they are all "helpless souls" just looking for a break does them a tremendous disservice. What is mean and ugly is their expectation that I owe them something that they have not earned.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#192 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
Some of the most terrifying moments for liberals.
Hearing these words:
Son it's time to get up and look for a job.
I'm pregnant and Malcolm was in prison-you must be the daddy.
Son, that's it I am no longer paying for the internet but we are still going out for your 30th birthday.
Your 86 year old father just lost his job-its time for you to be the man of the house.
I know you work part time at White Castle but perhaps now is not the time to have a 5th child.
Your job of calling the toll free number to certify for your weekly benefits is up next week. It's time to find another job-are you disabled?
I'm pregnant-how are you going to pay for the abortion?
Food stamps not accepted.
You must pay at time of service-no checks accepted.
May the best man win!!!
Back by popular demand.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#193 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
American heroes.
The welfare queen, with great courage making her weekly walk under enemy fire, through the Housing Project lobby to retrieve her public dole.
The unemployed college grad, defending his basement apartment like the Alamo against parental invasion, while at the same time begging mom and dad to use the land line, so as to assure he can certify his weekly benefits.
The public school teacher, who tirelessly works a mere 180 days a year, collecting paychecks all summer while sitting on the beach and always gets home before the sun sets. Can we not give this tireless worker the support (in other words more tax payer dollars) so her union demands can be met? More days off, less work and more rubber rooms.
The illegal immigrant pursuing the American Dream while constantly having children she cannot support. Such courage!!
Then of course, the Nathan Hale of the bunch, the Occupy Wall Streeter, whose shot heard round the world was taking a dump on a police car and then going back to his parents house in Westchester to find himself at 32.
His only regret, he has but one turd to give for his country.
God bless America
Back by popular demand.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#194 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
Mean and ugly is the reality of the liberal agenda. Lazy irresponsible slobs that never take personal responsibility exist in the world and they feel entitled to live off the hard work of others. They are sickening. They should not be subsidized. Are you saying I have a responsibility to give them my money anyway without a corresponding obligation on their part to at least act responsibly and modify their behavior?
I should subsidize their reckless behavior and poor choices? I don't think so. What is mean and ugly is not calling them out for what they are. Re-enforcing the belief that they are all "helpless souls" just looking for a break does them a tremendous disservice. What is mean and ugly is their expectation that I owe them something that they have not earned.
The circle jerkers called. They can't get along without you.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#195 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
<quoted text>
American heroes Part 2
The single mom, who chose to be single by never demanding accountability and a commitment, before recklessly procreated with every drunk and drug addict in the neighborhood, finally spends quality time with her 4 kids by taking them all of them to the liquor store on the way to school. Mom will find a way to make ends meet, just as soon as she finishes "looking for Mr. Right" in the projects which she has been doing since she was 13. After a grueling day of making a 5 minute call to certify for her weekly benefits she retires to the Housing Project courtyard and the quiet tranquility it brings. Hip hop music, gun fire and the sound of grown men shooting hoops on a Monday. She dreams that one day her "disability" of being lazy and irresponsible will go away. This liberal hero deserves a chance-won't you pay more taxes to help keep her enslaved to government dependance?
Back by popular demand.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#196 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
American Heroes Part 3
A young man, whose hippie parents encouraged him to wear nail polish and dresses his entire life so as not to interfere with his development and personal choices, quite unexpectedly and suddenly realizes he may be a girl and wants to become one. This journey of self realization comes with great sacrifice. How can one work if they are confused? However, saving for the "operation" becomes the sole focus of this productive citizen. He will work, despite his self loathing to achieve the American Dream......breasts!!! What a treat for the general public. After all nothing quite complements a fine meal out with your family than being served by a waitress with an Adam's apple. Who wouldn't want a transgender driving the school bus? But the polite thing, is to pretend this is normal. You must not judge others! So what if the Brownie that goes camping with your daughter is a boy. Deal with it! Who cares, that the girl you just had sex with was a guy?
This hero manages to work every day, except when they are out on disability which the tax payer subsidizes, so someday they can become the opposite sex. That my friend is what made this country great. Gritty and rugged self determination.
Back by popular demand.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#197 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
American Heroes Part 4
Someone must keep this city clean. A man rises to the call. He will take the Sanitation test! He will work for a public municipality. Years of study are finally going to pay off. He is one of the lucky 99.99% who managed to pass the grueling exam. The skill set he will offer the public as a public servant is nothing short of extraordinary. He has the ability to pick up a garbage can, remove the lid, empty the contents of said can into back of truck, and place (and this is where is gets difficult) the can back on the sidewalk. He will repeat this complex skill set many times over during the less than six hours he actually works each day. His union will assure that no can is too heavy or that he has to pick up too many of them on any particular day. His chances of ever getting fired are zero. This man or mule must not exert himself too much because replacing the complex skill set he has mastered is difficult and costly. A $8.00 to $10.00 hr skill set in the private sector (the real world)is suddenly priceless. He must be treated and almost paid like a skilled surgeon on the taxpayer dime. His day must include multiple breaks, sleeping in the cab of the truck, and randomly leaving cans untouched on garbage day for reasons unknown. Eventually, someone notices he is exceptional at picking up cans, removing the lids, emptying them and placing them back on the sidewalk and so he becomes a supervisor who gets to watch others do what he has been overpaid to do up until that point. Eventually, this civil servant will retire at 45 with a tax free pension of $130,000 a year and full medical benefits. Of course a pension should be based on the last few years of your salary which is bloated by overtime. It's only the taxpayers money!! Of course, all city workers manage to go out on some kind of disability pension-that why they are only able to put in 30 hours a week during their second career.
Why would anyone oppose a tax increase?
Back by popular demand.
proudbeamerica n

Staten Island, NY

#198 Dec 4, 2012
proudbeamerica n wrote:
American Heroes Part 5
The liberal woman is a shining example of dignity and personal responsibility. That is why she is my hero. Think of a dead ringer for 20 year old Elena Kagan (when she was in her prime!!) who actually likes men. These gals love to feel liberated. They control their bodies. But they insist the taxpayer ponies up for their birth control pills and abortions. They never touch meat except on girls night out. These desperados think men are actually interested in their minds and hope men will give them a pass for their pixie cuts and unkempt appearance. They still haven't figured out that when looking for a mate it helps to be attractive. They do manage to procreate however and when they do-it's off to the abortion clinic with the guys money. They never seem to go dutch when it comes to the annual trip to Planned Parenthood. Can't let a fetus stand in the way of the next promotion.
Nothing will stand in the way of these ladies. Career is everything. These gals are career driven-there is no doubt-so driven in fact that they typically wait until they are 47 before they have kids. They always have a plan. Sometimes having 4 or 5 abortions during your youth makes it tougher to actually have a kid when you are ready. But what do I know. As far as kids, the story typically ends with them sitting on the coach in their loft, well past their prime, with their community activist husband (who's still finding himself)looking through the classifieds for a surrogate mother and a sperm donor. How romantic! The good news is they get to use some other woman as a baby factory who surrenders all parental rights for some cash. Such compassion! Limpy, her live in partner, also gets to proudly boast to the neighbors that he is also pregnant.
After, the stork delivers-I mean they drive cross country to wrestle their child from the hands of the biological mother-they resume their selfless lives lecturing everyone else on how to live theirs. Their child, who is dressed in the clothes of the opposite sex purposely to assure it determines its own sex, is placed in the loving care of an undocemented nanny fron Ecuador that speaks no English and pays no taxes.
If only Norman Rockwell were alive to paint a picture of the American family.
Back by popular demand.

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.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Next Attorney General Should Make President... Mon thegreatlc33 3
Expelled Nazis paid millions in Social Security Mon Dr Milan Sufflay 1
JUMP TO MORE ON diaperheads (Dec '13) Sat masters techs 53
new ebola hoax Sat masters techs 5
Tips on caring for your aging parents (Feb '14) Oct 17 Zach 8
as if I wouldn be surprised to see them in Tops... Oct 17 yoyolike 1
Daily water allocation could be the next Califo... Oct 16 jimjim 2

Social Security People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE