Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
There is a reason why all first world nations have social safety nets. It's what civilized people do.
|
And do those nation-States (since that's what nearly all of them are) also have 6 carrier battle groups?
Germany, which is a nation-State, could not afford its social welfare programs if it had 6 carrier battle groups.
But, then Germany benefits from the actions the US undertakes. You can give you your carrier battle groups, but then you cannot whine and complain when the rest of the world dumps the US Dollar and your currency goes **** up.
You want a certain life-style and you want a certain standard of living, but you don't understand that having both the life and the standard of living come with a price-tag and that price tag revolves around 6 carrier battle groups.
It also means you government, and by extension you personally, since yours is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, does things that are truly ugly, like sending people like me to Honduras to romp through the jungle and terrorize villagers, in an attempt to coerce them into voting for the US puppet, so that US corporations can operate with impunity.
Think of the world as one gigantic shopping mall just for Americans (since that's basically what it is).
You have security guards at shopping malls, right? And why? Because if you didn't, then people wouldn't shop there and eventually stores would pull out, jobs would be lost and the shopping mall would end up closing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
If we can afford trillions on wars, we can afford a social safety net for crying out loud.
|
Then shift the programs to the States. I'm not asking that you completely forgo your social welfare programs, I'm just asking that you transfer 100% control to the States.
I'll rephrase, if yo want my support for social welfare programs, then shut down the federal government and transfer those programs to the State and let the people of each State decide how they are run.
It's just common sense.
As I have repeatedly asked, and as all *******s have repeatedly side-stepped and dodged the issue, where is the logic?
The cost-of-living varies dramatically in the US from State-to-State, yet *******s refuse to acknowledge that. Why?
Can even one of you muster up enough courage to answer that question?
What is it that you fear?
Because your cost-of-living varies dramatically, there are people earning the federal minimum wage and living a Middle Class life-style, while others can't even afford to rent an 8' x 10' room each month.
How can you possibly justify that? One person is being enriched at the expense of another. And you liberals think that is cool.
The governmetn hands out $500 in Food Stamps. In some States, a family of four can eat very well on $300 per month while in other States a family of 4 could barely feed themselves 1,200 calories per day on $500.
Once again, someone is being unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and you liberals think that is just the greatest thing in the world.
And what is your solution? Increase Food Stamp benefits. Well that's just great. Now one family can eat for 2 months off of $600 and another family in another State can only eat for 1 month.
And you don't see the waste and inefficiency?
How can you possibly justify that?
Why won't any of you liberals answer? What are you afraid of? Well, for starters, your wrong, and you just cannot admit it.
Reasoning...
Mircea
[quote=roysoldboy;23301314]I can't accept the last part of this one since I have been paying to Social Security since I was 12 (that would be 67 years) and have been paying to Medicare since its inception during the Democrat days in control of Congress. All of a sudden I find out that these two things are entitlements although I have paid into them all that time.
[quote]
Social Security is not an entitlement program. Social Security is an insurance program. That's why it is called Old Age Survivor's
Insurance (OASI) and also Old Age Disability
Insurance (OADI).
The minimum monthly Social Security benefit is $1
The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $2,513
When you retire, you will receive somewhere between $1 and $2,513 based on your average monthly earnings.
Notice I said "
average monthly earnings."
Notice that I did not say "
the total amount you earned over your life-time" or
"the total amount of FICA taxes you paid."
The amount of FICA taxes you paid is irrelevant, because Social Security is not a pension plan, nor is it a retirement savings plan, nor is it a 401(k) plan. It is an insurance plan.
I'll quote the idiot Goss from his February 28 testimony before Congress:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Page 3 Goss Testimony
Social Security benefits were never intended to provide all we need in retirement.
|
For those who cannot read, I'll highlight the relevant parts:
Social Security benefits
were never intended to provide all we need in retirement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Page 5 Goss Testimony
If we do not act, benefit levels will be reduced automatically by about 25 percent by 2036.
|
Again, for the hard of hearing:
If we do not act, benefit levels will be reduced automatically by about 25 percent by 2036.
He's got the date wrong. It's actually 2025-2026.
As far as Medicare, I would have to call that an entitlement program, since it has been altered. Originally, Medicare covered only hospitalization. Medicare never covered doctor's office visits and all of the other nonsense which bankrupted the system.
Medicare claims the HI Trust Fund will be exhausted, but for reasons which I have elaborated on in this and other threads, the actual default date is 2018.
Medicare asked Congress to raise the Medicare tax or cut benefits 17% in June 2011. Congress has failed or refused to do either, and that makes the default date 2017. And if Congress does nothing this year, then the default date will be 2016. And if Congress does nothing in 2013, the default date will be 2015 and so on.
If you restore Medicare to its original intended purpose, which is
hospitalization only,meaning that if you aren't in the hospital then Medicare pays 0%, then you could probably keep Medicare far longer than Social Security.
Clarifying...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
You don't understand that nothing you think can accomplish can be accomplished without my respect for your rights. When you have no respect for the rights of anyone else, your own rights are negated. This includes corporate America bribing my representation out from under me.
<<Snip>>
SUB Rant (No Arguments, Stupid Arguments, Idiotic Statements)
DIM Loser AS CONSTANT WHINER SELECT CASE Rant
IF Rant THEN
DO RANT
WHILE Loser = TRUE
LOOP
END IF
END SELECT
Rant = Loser
END SUB
<<Snip>>
Sarah Palin absolutely does represent you. She charmed her way into a mayor's office job, used the job as a means to hire lobbyists with half a million dollars of money wasilla didn't have for the chance to prey on congressional committees & procure an ice rink for Eskimos. The Tea party champion of fiscal conservative. The libertarian enlightened self interest spitting on legitimate stewardship. Too ignorant to be ashamed of themselves. |
How many members of Corporate America have you terminated?
Obviously none, so rant away.
Amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Proof positive of what I have said for many years: there's no such thing as "common sense". So if the guy doesn't hang around for 9 years, the kids should not get any support from him?
|
My function on Planet Earth is not pay for the mistakes of others.
As usual, you don't apply any common sense.
The government engages in "social engineering" and freely admits it. You can read any number of government funded studies about the topic. If you want to engage in social engineering that common sense says that in the event of the, um, "no-fault" divorce, whoever files the petition pays 100% of the child support. If that is woman, then she pays 100% and the man does nothing, and if it is the man, then he pays 100%.
I guess since some people aren't too bright, I should elaborate and explain that in the old days before the existence of "no-fault" divorce, you could petition on grounds of physical/emotional abuse; abandonment; alcohol, drugs or gambling; crimes of moral turpitude; or infidelity.
That means if an husband petitions for divorce on grounds of infidelity, then the wife pays 100% of the child support. If a woman files on grounds of infidelity then the husband pays 100%.
And for women who aren't married, they get nothing.
What kind of social engineering do you think that will produce? Perhaps women will learn how to keep their panties on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Did you invent that post? Either that or that poster is fregging crazy. Talk about making women second class citizens dependent on the irresponsible whims of an otherwise dead beat daddy. What an a-hole???
|
Irresponsible whims? Are you suggesting women's panties magically come off by themselves? Or do you believe pregnancy is a matter of mystical experiences?
How does one go about that? Does one use a magic wand or can one invoke a spell?
Anti-Panty Field
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 10 feet
Areaa: 10 foot radius centered on you
Duration: 6 minutes
Saving Throw: None
Resistance: Yes, if Lesbian
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you, pulling off the panties of any women within the radius.
An Anti-Panty Field suppresses birth control or any other spells or magical effects used within, brought into, or cast into the area.
If you cast an Anti-Panty Field in an area occupied by a Lesbian, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the Lesbian's spell resistance to make them come off.
Furthermore, while a penile implant does not function properly within the area, it is still semi-erect. Should an obese woman be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.
Sperm Swarm
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 400 feet + 40 feet per level
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving Throw: None or half
Spell Resistance: Yes, if lacking serviceable parts
Sperm Swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell that is similar to ****-Ball in many aspects. When you cast it, four 2-foot-diameter globs of sperm spring from your outstretched hand and streak in straight lines to the spots you select. The sperm spheres leave a slimy trail of goo.
If you aim a sphere at a specific woman, you may make a ranged touch attack to impregnate the target with the sperm. Any woman struck by one of these spheres takes 2d6 points of water-weight gain (no save) and receives no saving throw against the sphere’s clothing damage. If a targeted sperm sphere misses its target, it simply explodes on the target’s face. You may aim more than one sperm sphere at the same target.
Once a sperm sphere reaches its destination, it explodes in a 40-foot-radius spread, dealing 6d6 points of delight to each woman in the area. If a woman is within the area of more than one sphere, she must save separately against each.
Magically...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
