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.
Lets see I read the first part of your book where you state that the Republicans saved SS by appointing a commission, but did not act on it. After you made an assertion and were unable to back it up with facts. Appointing commissions and then not acting on their recommendations is not saving SS. Your argument lost credibility from the beginning so I decided not to read the remaining part of your novel.
disapproving
Hotair2
I like how the poster is proven wrong and then doesn't post.
I like how the poster is proven wrong and then doesn't post.
I don't live here. It isn't my job to hang around and wait to see if people post responses or not.
If it upsets you that much, you have permission to send me a PM to remind me to respond to your pedaantic musings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
The funny thing is that you get proven wrong in almost every post yet you still act like you are right.
Show me one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
Especially after you made a big deal about it being 47% when it was 47 million people (and that's rounding up) and I abridged your flame post.
Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the point.
I never said anything about 47%. Food Stamps are issued to households, not people in the household. They are specifically issued to the head of household, one EBT card per household, not one EBT card per household member.
Quote:
In SNAP, a household is normally a group of people who live together and buy food and prepare meals together.
Accordingly, the Critical Thinker would then ask why something was phrased as...
"47 Million people receive Food Stamps"
... when it is households that receive Food Stamps; members of an household benefit from, but do not actually receive, Food Stamps,
An intelligent person would probably come to the conclusion that the intent of the journalist was to exaggerate, titillate, incense or inflame.
Very obviously, you didn't get it.
Posting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Lets see I read the first part of your book where you state that the Republicans saved SS by appointing a commission, but did not act on it. After you made an assertion and were unable to back it up with facts. Appointing commissions and then not acting on their recommendations is not saving SS. Your argument lost credibility from the beginning so I decided not to read the remaining part of your novel.
disapproving
Hotair2
Well, half of what I post goes over your head and the other half way over.
It was actually Nixon who appointed the "Notch" Commission.
Quote:
In 1972, legislation was enacted designed to automatically keep benefits up to date with inflation while at the same time assuring adequate financing to support the program into the long-range future. In addition, the 1972 legislation provided a one-time increase of 20% in Social Security benefit levels.
The Notch Commission was responsible for the 1977 Social Security Amendments.
And for the record....
Quote:
In June, the Ford Administration submitted to Congress a proposal to create a new method for determining initial benefits(20) based on an approach called "wage indexing," a method which adjusts a worker's wages to reflect economy-wide changes in wages over his or her lifetime.'' Hearings were held on this proposal, but Congress adjourned for the upcoming Presidential elections before completing a full review.
...the Ford Administration submitted legislation, but the Democrat-controlled House & Senate failed to act.
It wasn't Ford's fault that Democrat Speaker if the House Tip O'Neil couldn't get his act together.
Reagan appointed the Greenspan Commission to further study Social Security and enacted legislation to keep it solvent.
I don't live here. It isn't my job to hang around and wait to see if people post responses or not.
If it upsets you that much, you have permission to send me a PM to remind me to respond to your pedaantic musings.
Show me one.
Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the point.
I never said anything about 47%. Food Stamps are issued to households, not people in the household. They are specifically issued to the head of household, one EBT card per household, not one EBT card per household member.
So, quite clearly 5 Republican presidents took actions to save Social Security: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger.
What have Democrats done?
Clinton and Obama have done absolutely nothing.
Carter did nothing either. He merely signed off on an amended bill submitted by the Ford Administration.
The claim that conservatives have attempted to dismantle Social Security is debunked.
You can find all that nice info at the SSA website.
Have a happy day...
Mircea
You only provided one cite. So that is the only thing that I will address as it seems the rest seems to be only your opinion, which I have found to be of no value.
In the one cite regarding the Bush commission, Bush's plan to privatize social security is not saving social security. Privatization of social security is eliminating social security. It was soundly rejected.
If you have any real facts to back up your statements, I would be happy to discuss them, but your opinion carries little weight as it almost always contrary to the facts.
I don't live here. It isn't my job to hang around and wait to see if people post responses or not.
If it upsets you that much, you have permission to send me a PM to remind me to respond to your pedaantic musings.
Show me one.
Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the point.
I never said anything about 47%. Food Stamps are issued to households, not people in the household. They are specifically issued to the head of household, one EBT card per household, not one EBT card per household member.
Accordingly, the Critical Thinker would then ask why something was phrased as...
"47 Million people receive Food Stamps"
... when it is households that receive Food Stamps; members of an household benefit from, but do not actually receive, Food Stamps,
An intelligent person would probably come to the conclusion that the intent of the journalist was to exaggerate, titillate, incense or inflame.
Very obviously, you didn't get it.
Posting...
Mircea
It's sad that you have to lie like this. You are shown wrong and you don't show your face in the thread again let alone respond to said post. If you can't remember what you said that goes to show your lack of intelligence to understand simple situations such as those you attempt to post about.
Yes, your intent is to incite hatred in the ways of bigotry and racism.
But according to you 47 million people means 47 million households.
You don't bother to check when you speak so you look like a fool.
Kid, you really need to rethink your posts because they are borderline unintelligible.
Time to put on your big-kid pants and grow up, you can't live in your parent's basement for forever.
There are very few people receiving assistance that are perfectly fine to work. It is not an issue like people make it out to be.
You cannot equate retired people collecting THEIR OWN BENEFITS that they've paid into all their lives.
Yours was a very disconnected response. It's just a coincidence that disability claims happen to climb to record levels at the same time we have high unemployment? Think about that for a second and tell me it makes sense. Tic Toc
Welfare, disability, unemployment, Medicare frauds are rampant. When you give something for nothing, anyone who prefers getting something for nothing will. Food stamps are a prime example. The food stamp program has exploded by 70% in just three years. Furthermore, when someone is on disability, they are off the unemployed list. This is another bait and switch the government is fine with (at the moment) because it makes unemplyment figures a tad better than they really are.
Let's face it... unemployment is really 15% or more.
Obama has become the president for the people... people who want something for nothing (Obama money) on the backs of the tax paying workers (social equality)
Good luck. You've been led to the water. The water was put in a cup for you with two cubes of ice as well.
It'll be your own fault hotair2 and plates if you die from dehydration.
They'd sooner be led to a poisoned well to drink from. The problem is, they want to bring as many people with them as possible. I guess this is why drug addicts hang out with each other. It makes them feel better if someone else is slowly dying with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
Do you even know what's going on? It's clear that you don't.
I rest my case. As soon as you get a deflective rather than substantive answer you know you hit a home run
No, most conservatives are deeply religious. They're not smart people. They typically lack the judgment and critical thinking to make decisions for the masses. Do you know what the Nazis, hells angels and the KKK have in common? They are all products of Christianity and it's narrow minded followers.
You cannot equate retired people collecting THEIR OWN BENEFITS that they've paid into all their lives.
Yours was a very disconnected response. It's just a coincidence that disability claims happen to climb to record levels at the same time we have high unemployment? Think about that for a second and tell me it makes sense. Tic Toc
Welfare, disability, unemployment, Medicare frauds are rampant. When you give something for nothing, anyone who prefers getting something for nothing will. Food stamps are a prime example. The food stamp program has exploded by 70% in just three years. Furthermore, when someone is on disability, they are off the unemployed list. This is another bait and switch the government is fine with (at the moment) because it makes unemplyment figures a tad better than they really are.
Let's face it... unemployment is really 15% or more.
Obama has become the president for the people... people who want something for nothing (Obama money) on the backs of the tax paying workers (social equality)
Someone is just upset because they too are a hypocrite.
You never add anything. All of your posts are you whining. Parroting other bigots makes you even worse than those who first said them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
I rest my case. As soon as you get a deflective rather than substantive answer you know you hit a home run
You can't rest a case when you have never made one.
Kid, when you're capable of having an original thought that doesn't revolve around your bigotry maybe then you can post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
