So what do you haters think....?????

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 135
  1. #1
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542
    Rep Points
    15370977

    So what do you haters think....?????

    So what do you haters think....????? Not that I care but I get a kick out of 3% of your posts the other 97% suck and are boring.


    House Bill HR 5152 Proposed to Grant Social Security Rights to Same-Sex Couples

    Last week, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced new legislation that would amend the Social Security Act to grant same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as legally married couples who pay into Social Security.

    According to The Advocate newsmagazine, "The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term 'permanent partner' to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms 'husband' and 'wife,' which are already present in the legal code."


    The Advocate continues, "Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do. Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers. "

    Congressman Nadler said in an April 10, 2006 press release, "Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to. The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry – but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all....
    "I’ve heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don’t want to discriminate against the LGBT community. If they truly don’t want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it...."


    The proposed legislation has already attracted 17 co-sponsors in the House: Representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey.
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  2. #2
    Esprit de Corps
    ELITE MEMBER
    Witmaster's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Points
    18685917

    The solution is simple...

    Dissolve Social Security.
    NEVER write a check with your mouth that you can't cash with your ASS!!

    I can run faster mad than you can scared

    "All right brain... I don't like you and you don't like me. So let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer" ~ Homer Simpson

  3. #3
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    So what do you haters think....????? Not that I care but I get a kick out of 3% of your posts the other 97% suck and are boring.


    House Bill HR 5152 Proposed to Grant Social Security Rights to Same-Sex Couples


    "I’ve heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don’t want to discriminate against the LGBT community. If they truly don’t want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it...."


    That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.

    One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.

    Vote Republican. They'll tell ya how to run your family.

  4. #4
    Elite Kiki
    ELITE MEMBER
    BigDyl's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Securityland
    Posts
    15,728
    Rep Points
    22298690

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795


    That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.

    One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.

    Vote Republican. They'll tell ya how to run your family.

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795 View Post
    Oh, I think Americans understand that the one thing conservatives hate the most is the idea of spending American tax money on Americans. . .in America.


    Your tax money is safe. . .in Iraq.
    Total ownage.

  5. #5
    fiendish thingy
    ELITE MEMBER
    fufu's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    18,205
    Rep Points
    81654611

    I think I don't want to read all that.
    fufu's 1337 Journal

    Your diet will set you free.

    I hate exercise, I love training.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    4,956
    Rep Points
    25470444

    I think the thread is gay
    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    I will not kill innocents.

  7. #7
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    I saw the controversy over the White House easter egg hunt...where gay couples are busting their asses to get tickets to attend. The White House stance is "all families are invited."

    How hypocritical is that? Bush and the Republicans go out of their way to bash gays and now 'all families are invited.' Gay marriage really energized the bigoted section of the republican base to vote this past national election.

    These bigots--with the President at the forefront--want to amend the US constitution to ensure that gays can never marry and remain second class citizens. The US constitution guarantees a US citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Seems fairly clear to me.

    But that's not good enough for some people. Some people only really feel alive when they have their foot on the throat of another. Believe me, these patriots would still be in the separate but equal camp if the civil rights movement died back in the 1950s.

    Granting the right of marriage to gays would clear up all this 'back-door' political maneuvering (SS benefits to gay couples) to get to the same goal of equal rights.

  8. #8
    Magical Apelikemenace
    ELITE MEMBER
    The Monkey Man's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    14,421
    Rep Points
    14936998

    Quote Originally Posted by Witmaster
    The solution is simple...

    Dissolve Social Security.
    And Marriage (as a legal entity)!

    If you want bennies for a "partner", whatever the sex... You pay!

    Same with bennies for dependants... You want, you pay!

    And give me my $4k every year dang'it, I won't get it back
    as social security anyhow...

    (I should be able to opt-out of social security anyway) -

    Have Problems?... Chances are its due to overpopulation
    Save The Oceans, Save the Planet, Save Your Family, Save Yourself!



  9. #9
    Rhino


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rockford, Illinois
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Points
    -24855

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795


    That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.

    One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.

    Vote Republican. They'll tell ya how to run your family.
    Why would they tell kids to use contraceptives, then limit them. This is rediculous. TEENAGERS HAVE SEX. They might as well accept it and try to cut the consequences from it, rather than attempting to supress hormones and naive thought of love. I really wouldn't be surprised if they did issue a sex permit. Lol.

  10. #10
    Rhino


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rockford, Illinois
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Points
    -24855

    mar·riage
    Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
    2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

    There's the dictionary definition. Gay's can't get married, so stop calling it "marriage." Call it "gay handcuffing." I agree that social security is a joke for more reasons than I have time to type. And I also agree that marriage should probably just be recognized as a religious thing and not a legal one. Don't give anyone special benefits. I love the quote earlier though about trying to keep gays as "second class citizens" by not letting them marry. Are all single people second class citizens then? I think not. Read the "True Story #3 thread" for more info. This bill is pathetic, but so is social security, republicans, democrats, the white house easter egg hunt, and the premise for the entire debate. If you're gay, it's not marriage, just get your own word and then we'll work on your rights, but believe the heterosexuals, marriage usually sucks..........

  11. #11
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542
    Rep Points
    15370977

    Quote Originally Posted by RCfootball87
    mar·riage
    Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
    2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

    There's the dictionary definition. Gay's can't get married, so stop calling it "marriage." Call it "gay handcuffing." I agree that social security is a joke for more reasons than I have time to type. And I also agree that marriage should probably just be recognized as a religious thing and not a legal one. Don't give anyone special benefits. I love the quote earlier though about trying to keep gays as "second class citizens" by not letting them marry. Are all single people second class citizens then? I think not. Read the "True Story #3 thread" for more info. This bill is pathetic, but so is social security, republicans, democrats, the white house easter egg hunt, and the premise for the entire debate. If you're gay, it's not marriage, just get your own word and then we'll work on your rights, but believe the heterosexuals, marriage usually sucks..........
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  12. #12
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,641
    Rep Points
    169172221

    OK, time to throw a monkey wrench into the works...................I agree with you.

    Well, partly.


    Marriage is a religious institution. Invented by the Catholics I believe. Therefore it should have no bearing on Social Security benefits. Marriage should be decided by the church. Social Security bennies should be decided by the government. Kind of makes me wonder why the Establishment Clause crowd hasn't tackled this issue yet.
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  13. #13
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542
    Rep Points
    15370977

    February 26, 2005

    Gay Marriage: Ideology of Evil

    Did you realize that efforts to legalize gay marriage are part of a new "ideology of evil"? That's the judgment of Pope John Paul II in his most recent book. Apparently it isn't enough to categorize it with the "culture of death," so a new rhetorical phrase had to be found.
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  14. #14
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    Quote Originally Posted by RCfootball87
    mar·riage
    Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
    2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

    There's the dictionary definition. Gay's can't get married, so stop calling it "marriage." Call it "gay handcuffing." I agree that social security is a joke for more reasons than I have time to type. And I also agree that marriage should probably just be recognized as a religious thing and not a legal one. Don't give anyone special benefits. I love the quote earlier though about trying to keep gays as "second class citizens" by not letting them marry. Are all single people second class citizens then? I think not. Read the "True Story #3 thread" for more info. This bill is pathetic, but so is social security, republicans, democrats, the white house easter egg hunt, and the premise for the entire debate. If you're gay, it's not marriage, just get your own word and then we'll work on your rights, but believe the heterosexuals, marriage usually sucks..........
    Read the rest of your dictionary definition. Marriage is a legal fiction (any religious connotation is pure ceremony) that gives rise to some benefits in this country. One of which is tied to Social Security (esp. death benefits). Social Security is not 'pathetic' and our society is much better for it.

    The qualitative measure of fundamental constitutional rights in this country is the equal application of those rights to all Americans. Single americans of the opposite sex can marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Single gay americans are denied that right by the bigots in Washington. Your argument that the opposite of married is single therefore misses the mark entirely. The issue involves fundamental constitutional rights of americans and gay americans are being treated as second-class citizens.

    Marriage can suck but, like life, it's what you make of it.

  15. #15
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,226
    Rep Points
    1007625380

    Marriage predates Christianity and is found in various cultures around the world that don't even have Christian, Jewish or Muslim influence. The Romans invented the engagement ring.

    But tas the Bible says:"Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women."(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  16. #16
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by RCfootball87
    mar·riage
    Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
    Function: noun
    1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
    2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

    You need to update your dictionary links. . .there is more than one dictionary and many are changing since gay marriage is legal in The Netherlands, Spain, Canada. . .and Massachusetts.

    There's the dictionary definition. Gay's can't get married, so stop calling it "marriage." Call it "gay handcuffing."

    Only gay "conservatives" engage in those S/M fetishes.

    I agree that social security is a joke for more reasons than I have time to type. And I also agree that marriage should probably just be recognized as a religious thing and not a legal one. Don't give anyone special benefits. I love the quote earlier though about trying to keep gays as "second class citizens" by not letting them marry. Are all single people second class citizens then? I think not. Read the "True Story #3 thread" for more info. This bill is pathetic, but so is social security, republicans, democrats, the white house easter egg hunt, and the premise for the entire debate. If you're gay, it's not marriage, just get your own word and then we'll work on your rights, but believe the heterosexuals, marriage usually sucks..........
    Well, I agree that marriage sucks. . .and mostly because the state and the church already has too much of its snotty nose into the mess. But single people do have second class status in many instances - it can easily cost a couple of grand to get the legal papers together and approved to even start to approach giving someone you live with some rights over your health decisions and funeral services. The way the family laws are written, the State has more power than someone you breathe your last wishes to out of your lips on your deathbed, and if some distant cousin who hates you doesn't step in to exhume your body and move it somewhere THEY want, the State can step in and take everything and pretend the person you live with never existed.

  17. #17
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    February 26, 2005

    Gay Marriage: Ideology of Evil

    Did you realize that efforts to legalize gay marriage are part of a new "ideology of evil"? That's the judgment of Pope John Paul II in his most recent book. Apparently it isn't enough to categorize it with the "culture of death," so a new rhetorical phrase had to be found.


    I always respect such words of wisdom coming from a Pope who presided quite willingly over the deliberate coverup of child sexual abuse cases in the Church.

  18. #18
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    Quote Originally Posted by maniclion
    Marriage predates Christianity and is found in various cultures around the world that don't even have Christian, Jewish or Muslim influence. The Romans invented the engagement ring.

    But tas the Bible says:"Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women."(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
    You are wise beyond your years. I believe that section of the bible comes right after this one:

    (The Book of Isaac 16:13-17 and Book of Stubing the intro)
    Love
    Exciting and new
    Come aboard
    We're expecting you

  19. #19
    Rhino


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rockford, Illinois
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Points
    -24855

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    Read the rest of your dictionary definition. Marriage is a legal fiction (any religious connotation is pure ceremony) that gives rise to some benefits in this country. One of which is tied to Social Security (esp. death benefits). Social Security is not 'pathetic' and our society is much better for it.

    The qualitative measure of fundamental constitutional rights in this country is the equal application of those rights to all Americans. Single americans of the opposite sex can marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Single gay americans are denied that right by the bigots in Washington. Your argument that the opposite of married is single therefore misses the mark entirely. The issue involves fundamental constitutional rights of americans and gay americans are being treated as second-class citizens.

    Marriage can suck but, like life, it's what you make of it.
    Social Security, in its current form, no the idea, IS pathetic. Social Security, when it was passed, was never intended to provide complete financial security for all the elderly, nor to even be given out to all the elderly. The idea was this : If an older person was so down on their luck and bankrupt that they were starving in the streets, the government would issue a small check from the social security fund, not enough to get an apartment and a car, but enough that this person could move in with a family member and at least not burden the family with their expenses. That was it. Not, "Wow I made it to old age, let's cash in on young people struggling to put gas in their Neon's even though we already drive a Cadillac." I agree with the initial principle, it was a nice thought. But that rates of it's application, and the amount it's costing people are outrageous. And it's not going to adjust for inflation that's going to be caused by the rate at which our governement continues to print Fiat money. And I'm never gonna see a god damn dime worth mentioning in comparison to what my portion could've amounted to if diverted to a Roth IRA starting at 16 when I got a job. So yes, Social Security IS pathetic. "We'll take your money and 'hold' it for you (like there's anything being held) since you're not responsible enough to invest for yourself, since we have the trillions of dollars in national debt that certifies us as economic masterminds" Right......

  20. #20
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    Quote Originally Posted by RCfootball87
    Social Security, in its current form, no the idea, IS pathetic. Social Security, when it was passed, was never intended to provide complete financial security for all the elderly, nor to even be given out to all the elderly. The idea was this : If an older person was so down on their luck and bankrupt that they were starving in the streets, the government would issue a small check from the social security fund, not enough to get an apartment and a car, but enough that this person could move in with a family member and at least not burden the family with their expenses. That was it. Not, "Wow I made it to old age, let's cash in on young people struggling to put gas in their Neon's even though we already drive a Cadillac." I agree with the initial principle, it was a nice thought. But that rates of it's application, and the amount it's costing people are outrageous. And it's not going to adjust for inflation that's going to be caused by the rate at which our governement continues to print Fiat money. And I'm never gonna see a god damn dime worth mentioning in comparison to what my portion could've amounted to if diverted to a Roth IRA starting at 16 when I got a job. So yes, Social Security IS pathetic. "We'll take your money and 'hold' it for you (like there's anything being held) since you're not responsible enough to invest for yourself, since we have the trillions of dollars in national debt that certifies us as economic masterminds" Right......
    Nonsense. You will see every single thin dime promised to you. Of the three projections for benefits made by SS actuaries, the rosy scenario has the trust funding all benefits fully well into the 2nd half of the century. The medium projections show a slight shortfall that's easily fixable w/out raising taxes. The gloomy scenario, the one utilized by the Bush people for its privatization canard, shows a mild shortfall in benefits paid by 2043. In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there.

    No doubt SS was expanded beyond the original intent of providing retirement income from payroll taxes. But thanks largely to all 3 components, the retirement income, disability and death benefit portions of the current form of SS, we have less than 10% of our aged population living in poverty conditions. The idea of SS retirement income is that we won't have to wait until conditions for the aged are so desperate that they are forced into the streets as beggars or buying cat food to eat instead of making heating bill payments or rent. SS's spreading around of the costs of the aged, like insurance, has guaranteed thm a modicum of dignity in one's golden years.

    If that pisses you off, then you should be absolutely livid over the annual raping of our governmental budget by defense contractors.

    Fiscally speaking, SS is one of the most efficient and wildly successful governmental programs ever. The administrative costs come out to a little less than 1% of the total program's cost. Compare that to the 17-25% overhead of privatized insurance bureacracy.

    Also, the pay-as-you go method of funding SS ensures that everyone that pays into it gets a benefit. Current payments pay current benefits. It is not a matter of the government 'taking your money and holding it for you.' That is not how it works.

    We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. Franklin Delano Roosevelt




    In short, you're wrong. SS is not pathetic. It's vital and effective.

  21. #21
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,641
    Rep Points
    169172221

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there.

    Ah, ah, ah......let's play nice here. Otherwise my experience might have to trump your conjecture.


    (The Thrift Savings Plan was introduced quite a few years ago as a choice for military personnel as a way to "suppliment" their retirement and has been working out VERY well for those who chose to participate. )
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  22. #22
    __________
    clemson357's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,697
    Rep Points
    15167689

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795


    That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.

    One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.

    Vote Republican. They'll tell ya how to run your family.
    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    I saw the controversy over the White House easter egg hunt...where gay couples are busting their asses to get tickets to attend. The White House stance is "all families are invited."

    How hypocritical is that? Bush and the Republicans go out of their way to bash gays and now 'all families are invited.' Gay marriage really energized the bigoted section of the republican base to vote this past national election.

    These bigots--with the President at the forefront--want to amend the US constitution to ensure that gays can never marry and remain second class citizens. The US constitution guarantees a US citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Seems fairly clear to me.

    But that's not good enough for some people. Some people only really feel alive when they have their foot on the throat of another. Believe me, these patriots would still be in the separate but equal camp if the civil rights movement died back in the 1950s.

    Granting the right of marriage to gays would clear up all this 'back-door' political maneuvering (SS benefits to gay couples) to get to the same goal of equal rights.


    I love reading stuff like this. It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.

    Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too. The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum. Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.

    conservatives would support seperate but equal if it were still around
    ________________________

  23. #23
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    Quote Originally Posted by ALBOB
    Ah, ah, ah......let's play nice here. Otherwise my experience might have to trump your conjecture.


    (The Thrift Savings Plan was introduced quite a few years ago as a choice for military personnel as a way to "suppliment" their retirement and has been working out VERY well for those who chose to participate. )
    Unfortunately, many people cannot contribute to TSP or 401k like deferred tax vehicles b/c they are hamstrung by the cost of living. SS was established as source of retirement income (and unemployment insurance) for the average american worker. Meaning that one did not have to rely on investment skills to gain a benefit--only payment of one's payroll taxes was necessary--or be part of a special workforce (armed forces). This type of social insurance is morally and economically defensible. The alternatives are not desirable. I mean why screw with something that obviously works. That's not to say refinement is out of the question.

  24. #24
    %
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,130
    Rep Points
    9140814

    Quote Originally Posted by clemson357


    I love reading stuff like this. It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.

    Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too. The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum. Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.

    conservatives would support seperate but equal if it were still around

    Maybe you should pick up a history book. Republicans freed the slaves.
    It's very easy to see how you alienate people at this site.

    Feel free to debate me on the merits of social security. I'll be here all day tomorrow. But now it is 4:30 in Milwaukee and I'm going home.

    I'll see you tomorrow.

  25. #25
    __________
    clemson357's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,697
    Rep Points
    15167689

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    It's very easy to see how you alienate people at this site.

    Feel free to debate me on the merits of social security. I'll be here all day tomorrow. But now it is 4:30 in Milwaukee and I'm going home.

    I'll see you tomorrow.

    I'd be more interested in debating your groundless generalizations, such as 'these people would support seperate but equal...'
    Last edited by clemson357; 04-17-2006 at 02:42 PM.
    ________________________

  26. #26
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,641
    Rep Points
    169172221

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    Unfortunately, many people cannot contribute to TSP or 401k like deferred tax vehicles b/c they are hamstrung by the cost of living. SS was established as source of retirement income (and unemployment insurance) for the average american worker. Meaning that one did not have to rely on investment skills to gain a benefit--only payment of one's payroll taxes was necessary--or be part of a special workforce (armed forces). This type of social insurance is morally and economically defensible. The alternatives are not desirable. I mean why screw with something that obviously works. That's not to say refinement is out of the question.
    Yep, agree 100%. But, the way I understand it was going to work for the American public was the same way it worked for military personnel, completely voluntary. Those that could/wanted to contribute were allowed to. Those that couldn't/didn't want to, didn't have to. Again, from what I've seen, those that chose to contribute are VERY happy.

    Truth in advertising note: I didn't participate because I was too close to retirement to contribute a worthwhile amount.
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  27. #27
    __________
    clemson357's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,697
    Rep Points
    15167689

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker
    I mean why screw with something that obviously works.


    I'll admit, I haven't exactly done days of research on the subject. However, from what I can glean just from keeping my ears open Social Security doesn't 'obviously work,' in fact it is far from it. In fact, aren't there plenty of signs that say SS is failing, and that people entering the work force now have a 0% chance of seeing any money upon retirement unless the system is completely overhauled?

    Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government. Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me. If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?

    of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.
    ________________________

  28. #28
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Points
    54346477

    let gays get married....give them the tax benefit.

    Its not even an issue for me. I am completely apathetic to the situation. I would probably abstain from voting on it.. It directly affects less than 2%-3% of the population.

  29. #29
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by clemson357


    I love reading stuff like this. It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.

    Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too. The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum. Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.

    conservatives would support seperate but equal if it were still around


    I think the joke is on the wingnuts. . .and how about this little tidbit:


    And listen, I should add, to the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative mouthpiece the Washington Times and self-proclaimed Messiah. Moon's warning to America is that we must have sex the way he entreats us, in the positions he has designated, or else forfeit our "love organs," as he dubs them, to the dark lord Satan.

    We all know the Right wants to decide what we can't do in the bedroom. But no one ever seems to ask what the Right wants us to do instead.

    "After the act of love," read the instructions from the Rev. Moon's conservative Family Federation, "both spouses should wipe their sexual areas with the Holy Handkerchief. Hang the handkerchief[s] to dry naturally and keep them eternally. They must be kept individually labeled and should never be laundered and mixed up."

    Maybe the best explanation of our widespread ignorance of the Washington Times owner's sex rites is liberal squeamishness. For those of you who suckled on secular humanism and feminist tracts (which Moon calls Satanic, by the way), these prescriptions from God might seem as off-putting as a Castro Street postcard storefront to Dr. James Dobson.

    But in order to usher in a national dialogue on faith in the public square, it's important to look beyond stereotypes of the Right to understand the diverse philosophies behind public movements for state-enforced morality.

    Rev. Moon, whose Washington Times is a crown jewel of the conservative media Death Star, offers the essential lessons. He's the last man most Americans would associate with Republican power circles, but is in his own secretive way as important a figure in the Christian Right as Jerry Falwell, who's still in business thanks to a $3.5 million bailout from Moon in 1995, or Tim LaHaye of the Council For National Policy, who took money to serve on the board of a group rehabilitating Moon's image, and once wrote a letter addressing Moon as "the Master."

    Just how big is Moon's standing in the Right? The "Republican Noise Machine" is a mighty edifice built with $3 billion in gifts from various right-wing philanthropists. Moon's gift of the Washington Times to the conservative cause alone places him in the club as a charter member; the paper owes its existence to a staggering figure of over $2,000,000,000 since 1982 in donations in Moon's mystery money.


    http://www.alternet.org/story/34072


    Ahh...vote Republican. They'll tell you how to raise your family.


  30. #30
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Points
    54346477

    what's the point?


    Wackos are wackos... on both sides.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. tbol . . any haters?
    By theCaptn' in forum Anabolic Zone
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-26-2010, 12:27 PM
  2. A kiss for all you haters!
    By MyK in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-20-2006, 07:49 PM
  3. For all the Ronnie haters!
    By MuscleM4n in forum Bodybuilding Gossip
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-08-2005, 06:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->