OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 12/06/2010 2:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

Privatizing SS would actually take money away from the government.
Taxing the hell out of your 401k gives the government money.

The real issue is, would your money have done better in a decent
portfolio of investments over 40 years, than it would in a PAID FOR
social security plan. I understand SS is a great deal but it is
unsustainable and far more generous for the amount invested because
politicians sold out our kids to the voters.(see Tyler). Unfortunately
I still say the whole idea of 62 year old retirees is unsustainable.
The Clinton era thinking that said people should be downsized into
company pension programs at 50 pretty much killed the private pension
system.

There is no doubt it would do better in your hands than the government.
Unless you do something stupid like cash it out.

Governemtns, as do corporate pension plans play the game of slight.
Pension managers not in your interest can use said funds to invest in
stuff no on else would. Another way of skiming is add executives to the
plan but not with the contributions to support their take. Case in
point, Paul Stern of nortel fame, got almost $1M a year but NorTel never
put the millions needed to support his take. Washing out the rank and
file. Most pension plans will not tell you what it is worth to you in cash.

In may case when I left Nortel in 1995, I put the money in my own
account. I am not 65 yet, but it already cranks out more than they
predicted. And it hasn't taken two depreciation hits and is not at risk
as if it was in NorTel.

Pensions are often scams when you look at them closely, someone is
always skiming them.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like
savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone
foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be a
paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT


Hold that thought. There's some other spelling errors, nearby, you need to
tag with your "IDIOT" logo.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

Sounds like you're trying to beat her down on her prices.
Just tell her what you need and I'm sure she'll do something for you.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy
is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day jobs.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 12/06/2010 3:39 PM, YukonBound wrote:


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances
than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to
graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get
to do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day jobs.

Nope, three stooges and a drunken ally cat.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have money
available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an appropriate
death.

The point was, with a metal standard they could have extra money in
reserve. With the federal reserve model it is just what you have in
tax revenue and what you print or borrow. There is no reserve. The
"trust fund" is a huge lie. It is just a promise to raise taxes that
the population will not tolerate.


Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer
generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of about 15
years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like savings
will
likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone foolish would pull
it
out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


That is yet to be seen isn't it? If a person is in debt and sees that
pile of money, they will cash it in. The only boomers who are retired
are the ones who are not in debt.

It's not needed. The "money in reserve is in the form of treasury notes,
which are invested in the general economy. Storing a lot of metal doesn't
really do much and it's certainly not readily usable.

Treasury notes are really nothing but paper that represents whatever
the fed says the money supply should be. It is like electricity in the
grid, you can't really store money if you are the guy who prints it.
It would only result in a decrease in the money supply.
When metal was the standard, your government was as rich as the metal
they held. Everything else was an IOU. We abandoned the metal standard
and made all of our money IOUs. I can understand the justification but
it comes with the danger of simply printing money and that can degrade
into hyper-inflation. These days they call that "monetizing the debt".
You balance the books but your money becomes worthless.
That is the fear in the EU with the P.I,G.S. They are writing checks
they do not have the money to cash and dragging down the Euro for the
countries who do have fiscal responsibility.

Metal is metal. It's not a good measure of wealth, esp. today. The T-notes
represent "value" as best as can be determined by global markets. The Fed
has limited control over that. Inflation is the danger you're talking about.
It's the job of the Fed not to let it get out of control. They're doing a
pretty good job. No reason to think that'll change.


Not really... there are always foolish people, but there are lots of
people
already in debt who don't pull out their money. As I said, the tax
consequences alone usually give people pause. Many boomers are in debt in
one form or another... mortgages are a good example. Most people think of
their home as an asset, but if you owe money, it's really a liability...
certainly one kind of liability that's easy to live with, even in
retirement.


The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.

Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes on
whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going to be
people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that situation.
And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where are the ones who
have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks happening.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job prospects?
Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.


Yes, me and my cat. My cat is smarter than you... by a long shot. Well, you
don't know very much. That's been established.

I don't dumpster dive, but I think I saw you doing that last week? You were
the scruffy looking guy who was mumbling to himself.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a
spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous administration".
Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job
prospects? Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the Red
Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for it.

Sounds like you're trying to beat her down on her prices.
Just tell her what you need and I'm sure she'll do something for you.

He couldn't afford what I sell. I sell high-end used clothing. Occasionally
we get a throw-away.. damage that wasn't noticed. I'd be happy to send those
to him... they are, after all, mostly clothes for women.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the
cost of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be
a paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT

See, progress. You did something useful today besides whale away like a
stuck constipated pig.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

I'm glad I can help with your continuing education. Sounds like you're the
constipated one, but leave the pig out of it.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 12:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost
of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of
about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on
that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending
and tax give-away for 7 years.

Ah, delerious denialism... Just a paracite. So how does it feel to be
a paracite?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

So, Bush did a good job? You're really an idiot!

It's spelled parasite not paracite. IDIOT


Hold that thought. There's some other spelling errors, nearby, you need to
tag with your "IDIOT" logo.


Why not just add the word to all of your posts. It'll save me some time, and
self-identification is very in now.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

Privatizing SS would actually take money away from the government.
Taxing the hell out of your 401k gives the government money.

Privatizing SS would mostly take money away from people. Umm... not sure
what you mean about taxing the 401ks... you mean when you withdraw them?

The real issue is, would your money have done better in a decent
portfolio of investments over 40 years, than it would in a PAID FOR
social security plan. I understand SS is a great deal but it is
unsustainable and far more generous for the amount invested because
politicians sold out our kids to the voters.(see Tyler). Unfortunately
I still say the whole idea of 62 year old retirees is unsustainable.
The Clinton era thinking that said people should be downsized into
company pension programs at 50 pretty much killed the private pension
system.

It is sustainable with some proper management. There's time to fix the
problems. The portfolio of which you speak might or might not work, but it
requires a great deal of effort from people who in many cases don't have the
time, inclination, or education to do it right.

Most people can work past 62, and perhaps the min. age should be raised, but
some would raise it to 90. As I said, there's plenty of time to fix SS, so
there's no need to jump off a cliff.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:11:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

The first is just politically impossible. The second isn't a bad idea, but
it is also highly unlikely. It goes right back to if someone has it, they
don't want to give it up. How do you plan on forcing people to give up
these
deductions?


Tyler again. As long as people get to vote for the taxes they pay they
will always vote themselves a "generous benefit"

So, I ask again, what's your solution? Take away their ability to vote??

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama) wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.


They'll remember you as a racist.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Vote for Palin. Oh wait, you can't vote...

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability
as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes
100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to
the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy
is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate
a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day
jobs.

Amazingly good job with it too!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 3:39 PM, YukonBound wrote:


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes
100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the
expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances
than how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to
graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get
to do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.
Who Me?

~~ Snerk ~~
You two trying out an Abbott & Costello routine? Don't quit your day
jobs.

Nope, three stooges and a drunken ally cat.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Apparently, you're one of the stooges. LOL!!!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:49:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I will lay that on every administration since Eisenhower. He was
the
last one who actually wanted the government to live within it's
budget. Goldwater predicted this Social Security problem in 1964,
when
we might have actually been able to do something about it. .By 1970
the die was cast and anyone who actually looked at the demographics
knew SS was going to go broke. The only arguments was when. In
spite
of that nobody was willing to propose the fixes that would actually
save the system (later retirement ages, stopping the unrealistic
growth in benefits and means testing the benefit). They nibble
around
the edges of this but they will not take the steps necessary to fix
it.
Greece is looking the same basic problem in the face, with a EU gun
at
their back and they will have to make the changes. Let's see how
that
works out.

We are in no way comparable to the Greek economy. SS is solvent now
and can
be fixed. The sky isn't falling.



The sky isn't falling yet but SS is clearly living beyond it's means.
We are borrowing money to make up the difference. The same is true of
Medicare.

But collapse is inevitable at this point. Politicians don't have the
balls to do what is needed. It is almost assured to be some kind of
collapse.

People have yet to ask why everyone is taking cutbacks but the
government is fater, lardier, and more elitest at every turn.

Certainly not sustainable, but I now submit economic collapse to new
lows is a mater of time, and not if.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

No. You're just a frightened little boy. Go hide under the bed. We'll
tell you when to come out.

I see that we've brought yoy down to our level.


I like to remain above ground. You're the groundhog.


Tell us about the exciting weekend you have planned for yourself. Another
weekend with the boys of rec.boats and your cat? How exciting. It must
really suck to be you.


Why do you care? I know you're a stalker/idiot/racist, but keeping tabs on
someone who is basically anonymous seems a bit psychotic.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:11:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The sky isn't falling yet but SS is clearly living beyond it's means.
We are borrowing money to make up the difference. The same is true of
Medicare.

Lots of things are in that category. As I said, it's fixable, both are.

Sure, about a 5% raise in taxes, across the board, would kick the can
down the road a decade or so. Try to get it.

Well, for starters we could just let Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy
expire. That would raise taxes back to the Clinton era. A nice start.

I'm happy to pay a bit more in taxes to fix problems. Most people are
willing to pay for services if they're given a choice. Well, except for the
something-for-nothing crowd.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try to
show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell. She-it
must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You don't
have any of those.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:29 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then,
it's don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them.
So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try
to show a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.


Like that hasn't happened already? You're an idiot/liar.

Em.. just Em dummy.

BM Dummy, that is your name? Wow, didn't know what made you so warped.
Did your parents hate you?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Even though you have lots of experience with people hating you, I don't
think your parents did.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the
government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+
years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save
money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go
and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other
things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust
fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the
cost of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83
million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending
it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have
money available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an
appropriate death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of
the boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread
of about 15 years... something like that. Most with substantial
401K-like savings will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only
someone foolish would pull it out at once, esp. given the tax
consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we
don't start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest
assured on that, little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social
security. Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on
a spending and tax give-away for 7 years.


You sound like Obie. Blame everything on the "previous
administration". Obie doesn't have the balls to say W's name.
Got any job prospects Emily?


Yeah, Bush was so wonderful... just about ruined the economy, the
environment, a war for no reason. What a great guy!

The name is Em, not Emily.

No. No job prospects. I own my own company. How about your job
prospects? Sorry, we're not hiring.


Who's we. You and your cat?
I doubt if you two are much competition for the Salvation Army or the
Red Cross in the used clothing marketplace.
BTW: Decent people donate their used clothing to charity.

Where do you get your merchandise? I hope you don't dumpster dive for
it.

Sounds like you're trying to beat her down on her prices.
Just tell her what you need and I'm sure she'll do something for you.

He couldn't afford what I sell. I sell high-end used clothing.
Occasionally we get a throw-away.. damage that wasn't noticed. I'd be
happy to send those to him... they are, after all, mostly clothes for
women.


Well, that would suit him just fine. Better than the Salvation Army stuff
he usually scavanges.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than
in a day-laborer capacity.


How do you know that? Did Harry tell you that, too?

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker. Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent and the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and
most of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road than
the US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada many move
out of Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You?? YOU???? hahaha... you can barely pay for your beer money.
So you know that to be a fact? How?

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try to
show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You don't
have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low can you
go, you stalking piece of ****e?

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to
move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax
paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try to
show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You don't
have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low can
you go, you stalking piece of ****e?


So, you're claiming he has balls? How would you know? Did you check?

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker. Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent and the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and most
of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road than the
US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada many move out of
Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You?? YOU???? hahaha... you can barely pay for your beer money.
So you know that to be a fact? How?

Osmosis.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 12/06/2010 4:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Metal is metal. It's not a good measure of wealth, esp. today. The
T-notes represent "value" as best as can be determined by global
markets. The Fed has limited control over that. Inflation is the danger
you're talking about. It's the job of the Fed not to let it get out of
control. They're doing a pretty good job. No reason to think that'll
change.

I really hope no one listens to your nonsense. Buying t-bills is silly,
pathetic and just down right stupid. Simple fact of the mater is rates
can't go lower, and will in time rise. World average is 4-6%. And
congress isn't getting out of this government caused depression of 0.25%
interest rates...oh no.

When the run occurs, look out, those t-bills face value will crumble big
time.

The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.

Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes
on whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going
to be people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that
situation. And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where
are the ones who have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks
happening.

Today you will not see people run to the banks on foot...
electronically, a different mater. What do you think happened 3 weeks
ago on the Thursday dip? Santa Claus?

Wow, you do define stupid.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker.
Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent
and the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and
most of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road
than the US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada
many move out of Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You?? YOU???? hahaha... you can barely pay for your beer money.
So you know that to be a fact? How?

Osmosis.


Nice try, moron.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 12/06/2010 4:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Vote for Palin. Oh wait, you can't vote...

Does not mater. US democracy is a ruse. All the best government
criminals can buy.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400,
wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class
act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then,
it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should
vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them.
So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any
strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to
move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax
paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in
a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try
to show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You
don't have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low can
you go, you stalking piece of ****e?


So, you're claiming he has balls? How would you know? Did you check?


You're sick!

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 4:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Metal is metal. It's not a good measure of wealth, esp. today. The
T-notes represent "value" as best as can be determined by global
markets. The Fed has limited control over that. Inflation is the danger
you're talking about. It's the job of the Fed not to let it get out of
control. They're doing a pretty good job. No reason to think that'll
change.

I really hope no one listens to your nonsense. Buying t-bills is silly,
pathetic and just down right stupid. Simple fact of the mater is rates
can't go lower, and will in time rise. World average is 4-6%. And
congress isn't getting out of this government caused depression of 0.25%
interest rates...oh no.

When the run occurs, look out, those t-bills face value will crumble big
time.

The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.

Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes
on whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going
to be people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that
situation. And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where
are the ones who have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks
happening.

Today you will not see people run to the banks on foot... electronically,
a different mater. What do you think happened 3 weeks ago on the Thursday
dip? Santa Claus?

Wow, you do define stupid.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Oh be quiet. The adults are talking.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:20:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Treasury notes are really nothing but paper that represents whatever
the fed says the money supply should be. It is like electricity in the
grid, you can't really store money if you are the guy who prints it.
It would only result in a decrease in the money supply.
When metal was the standard, your government was as rich as the metal
they held. Everything else was an IOU. We abandoned the metal standard
and made all of our money IOUs. I can understand the justification but
it comes with the danger of simply printing money and that can degrade
into hyper-inflation. These days they call that "monetizing the debt".
You balance the books but your money becomes worthless.
That is the fear in the EU with the P.I,G.S. They are writing checks
they do not have the money to cash and dragging down the Euro for the
countries who do have fiscal responsibility.

Metal is metal. It's not a good measure of wealth, esp. today. The T-notes
represent "value" as best as can be determined by global markets. The Fed
has limited control over that. Inflation is the danger you're talking
about.
It's the job of the Fed not to let it get out of control. They're doing a
pretty good job. No reason to think that'll change.


The real question still comes down to what the world will pay for our
paper. Most of our debt is in short term notes. All it will take to
bury us is for that interest rate we need to make our paper attractive
go up to 7 or 8%
The only reason they like the dollar is the rest of the western
economies are in worse trouble than we are.

Well, the world isn't having much of a problem so far. With all the trouble
in Europe, the money seems to be invested in the US even more lately, as you
said... they are in worse shape. China isn't going to do much, given they
would lose lots and be much worse off if they decided to pull out of their
investment in a precipitous fashion.


Not really... there are always foolish people, but there are lots of
people
already in debt who don't pull out their money. As I said, the tax
consequences alone usually give people pause. Many boomers are in debt
in
one form or another... mortgages are a good example. Most people think
of
their home as an asset, but if you owe money, it's really a liability...
certainly one kind of liability that's easy to live with, even in
retirement.


The tax consequences disappear at 59.5 years old. If you are carrying
a big balance on a 29.99% credit card, that 10-15% you will have to
give Sam starts looking very attractive.


Completely untrue. If you liquidate a regular IRA, you have to pay taxes
on
whatever you receive over some base amount. There are certainly going to
be
people with a 30% rate, but the vast majority won't be in that situation.
And, as I said, it's not going to happen all at once. Where are the ones
who
have that rate now? I don't see any run on the banks happening.

You don't need all the boomers to liquidate all of their 401k/IRA
holding to seriously impact the markets, you just need the hint that
they will and some movement in that direction. The rumor of a run on
one stock caused the Dow to lose 1000 points in about 15 minutes.


There is no such hint. That particular drop still hasn't been fully
explained, and banks have failed in greater numbers in previous years. No
run on banks happened then either.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:30:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tyler again. As long as people get to vote for the taxes they pay they
will always vote themselves a "generous benefit"

So, I ask again, what's your solution? Take away their ability to vote??


There isn't any real solution. That is the problem.
We are like alcoholics. There is not going to be a fix until we hit
absolute rock bottom and come away with a whole new way to live.
We keep "fixing" our economy by borrowing more money and promising if
we get away with it this time, we will never do it again. We still
never pay the debt back.
I really think this recession/depression thing will end the same way
the last one did, in a global war.
Our biggest problem is there are not enough people alive today who
remember that things don't really have to go well and things do not
always come out OK in the end.

One solution might be to use nudge psychology....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...conservatives1

Again, there's no expectation of "global" war. Who exactly are we going to
fight that's capable of any kind of sustained major campaign??

I totally disagree with your last thought. Things pretty much have always
"come out OK in the end." I can't think of a huge problem that didn't
eventually find some resolution... Fascism, racism (well, it's a work in
process), communism (even China isn't really an economic communistic state,
so that leave N. Korea?)...

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 4:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 2:33 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600,
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax
deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get
older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys
to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US
economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

Don't know what the 2d was. But if BMBO (Big Mouth Barrack Obama)
wanted
to solve the problems:

1) Declining benefits of mortgage deducability with age. Ok as a
start,
but designed to encourage home equity not big debt.

2) If you don't have 20% down, pretty darned good chance you can't
afford
it.

3) Factor in kids and lifestyle. There is more to good finances than
how
much you can pay. Kids eat crap as parents are "house poor".

4) If a loan puts you over $20k total debt, then you need to graduate
a
personal debt and finace course test first. Or no debt.

5) Stop the Fed banks from undervaluing cost of debt, reward
depositors.
Stop slighting people who do it right for the losers.

Obama however is a spend crazy jack ass. Selling out USA...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

The key word is Jackass. That's how history will remember him.

Yep. As history hasn't been written yet. People in 3 years will get to
do that.

Are you going spekll crazy too?

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Vote for Palin. Oh wait, you can't vote...

Does not mater. US democracy is a ruse. All the best government
criminals can buy.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're pretending to be sane... fyi, it's not convincing.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/2010 1:05 PM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400,
wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a
class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it
affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in
their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then,
it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should
vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them.
So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any
strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to
move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax
paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a
crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in
a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You're the one who's always ranting about the sky fall numnuts.
How would you like it if we started talking about your privates. Try
to show
a modicom of decency around here, Emanuela.

Don't worry, if de-fumer came after my nuts, I would run like hell.
She-it must be a real ball breaker.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You have nuts?? Oh, you're talking what passes for balls. Nope. You
don't have any of those.
(Um!),Now you are taking inventory of some poor guy's junk. How low can
you go, you stalking piece of ****e?


So, you're claiming he has balls? How would you know? Did you check?


You're sick!


I'd rather be sick that stupid.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's
don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So
far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker.
Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent and
the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and
most of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road than
the US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada many move
out of Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

You?? YOU???? hahaha... you can barely pay for your beer money.
So you know that to be a fact? How?

Osmosis.


Nice try, moron.

I guess you aren't familiar with that term either. I don't see why, you have
nothing on plants.