On 18/02/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:10:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic.

Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to
insult me.


Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are
unsustainable?

Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem.
It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the
long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but
that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep
enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit
reduction amount a short while ago.

That is what brought down the Greek economy

We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some
people...

They said GM was too big to fail. Here is a hint, that was hogwash. US
is NOT too big to fail, and in fact is going through that right now.
Too big to fail instantly, yes, too big to fail - nope.

Smart money is leaving the US. Look at the stocks, those with foreign
content are doing better than pure domestic plays. Even Warrent Buffet
knows this.

Obama is a debt monger, debt worshiper. And there is no known route to
wealth through excessive unmanageable debt. Iceland tried the very
policy Obama is trying, it failed miserably. Iceland tried this before
too, in 1974 they had 43% inflation. Today, they have high
unemployment, stagnant economy and basic minimum wages.

Look at Japans lost decades.

UK devalued the pound by 30% once, took the economy more than a decade
to recover.

Fact remains, and no liberalism will ever override reality.... you can't
debt-spend your way out of a debt problem.

In Debt We Trust -- Obama.

That spells economic doom. Might take decades, might take days, but be
sure the future in debt is not bright.

Never invest in a chronic debtor, you lose money that way.
--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 18/02/2011 9:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:44:30 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:29:01 -0800, wrote:

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic.

Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to
insult me.

I apologize, that was snarky.

Apology accepted.



Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are
unsustainable?

Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem.
It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the
long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but
that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep
enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit
reduction amount a short while ago.

$1.1T is trivial compared to the problem. That barely covers where we
are now and there are only a small fraction of the boomers on the
public dole. If he can't touch the current deficit, how will he handle
the hockey stick that is in the next decade?
I don't think the GOP is really talking about it either.

They're talking about when it suits them. Sessions was talking about
it along with the rest of the right-wing nuts. They would love to gut
all the social programs. I'd say that it's in their DNA, except they
don't believe in science.


That is what brought down the Greek economy

We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some
people...

No we are not Greece. The world could survive a total collapse of
Greece. When the US gets a cold, the world gets pneumonia.

We are not even close to a "collapse"... guess you didn't hear but the
economy is getting better.

You believe Obama bull****? A record number of people are expected to
lose their homes THIS YEAR. Civic and state debt defaults are skyrocketing.

Infamous last words. They said that after the Titanic hit the iceberg,
we are too big to sink.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. *;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns.

A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with.
Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support
the constitution?

Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better
because you've got no clothes otherwise.

Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the
knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't
win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming
to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?"

Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of
freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you
sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is
surely not in understanding politics or people.

One guy with a long gun, compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded

Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE

Here is another advocate of "free speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp

I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd?

http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash-
left-behind/

Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the
Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in
full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said
happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a
rally and stopped by as far as you know.

You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and
destruction yet the video shows just the opposite.

Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied.

I sure hope that was a joke.

No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about
something happening on the steps of congress.

There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A
group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof
beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the
Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll.

That's not proof that she lied and you know it.

It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have
to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are
clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from
daylight, when the tapes came out.

Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't
happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation
of the world, to start with.

There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time,
from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied.

Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't
mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that
incident and you know it, or you should know it.

But you are wrong. Every angle was covered during the event, video and
audio were quite clear. The story as she told it did not add up and the
audio was conclusive. That's why with a dozen or more professional
videographers, several working for Pelosi herself as she trolled for an
incident, even with $100,000 on the line, not one shred of audio or
video even came close to squaring with Pelosi's story, much less any
evidence of it's truthfulness. She made it up, she lied, period.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote:



Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore
SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit.

The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant.

Completely untrue and misleading as usual.

What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in
the out years?

SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is
changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW.


WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business
that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that
will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to
remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this
lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become
welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter
benefits.

So what. That's a long-term problem not a short term one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...rming_soc.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...shortfall.html

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:08:52 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:40:15 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:38:16 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Feb 18, 1:09 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.

They never went along with anything. What R's do best is obstruct,
even when it's in the best interest of their constituents and the
country.

Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?

I like it when Gov't gets shut down. It forces people to confront the
issues.

I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

The governor is using strong arm tactics to undermine collective
bargaining. It's happening all over the country in areas where R's
only interest is in serving the wealthy and big business by
undercutting unions.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

It'll be good if it happens. People will have to deal with the
reality of government going into complete disfunction. All those who
believe that government is evil will be crying like little babies.

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

Oh, you mean the right wing is better armed. This is what all the
jerks have been spoiling for. We're going to do a little cleansing in
the USA?

There is going to be a counter protest at the Wis Capitol organized by
Breitbart. Union/Obama thugs should carefully consider before they
resort to violence the consequences of such.

Maybe he'll shoot some video, doctor it, then claim they've taken
control of the White House.

Should be renamed the Debt House.

Maybe you should rename your house the Loony House.

Loonie house is worth more than a greenback house these days.

Used to be the CAD was 70 cents USD. Now it is $1.013 and rising.

You don't think I moved back to Canada in 2004 by mistake? I could see
the economic collapse a mile away and with INS dragging it
arse....because my old man didn't pay his taxes since 1958 or so... even
though mine were up to date. Plus a 2005 law was coming to make it
harder to manage my Canadian investments from the US. So I consolidated
in Canada.

You moved back to Canada because you were thrown out of the US.

Feel free to stay there or move to Yemen.

Made for a no brainier as the tide was indeed turning. Went from 90%
invested in the USA to 10%, converting most of it at about 70 cents USD
to CAD, now they are at essentially par. In Canada, that is a 42%
non-taxable gain as I do not professional trade currency, just made it
worth my while to repatriate.

So in fact my loonie house is worth more than your USD debt house. All
the US government did was scare away a high rate taxpayer.

You're the loonie.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:01 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote:

Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed
would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting
cutting would be miniscule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I agree. You just asked what we could do without.
The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the
entitlements.

So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes
are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either.

We managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the
department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of
carbon free energy.

And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't
want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense.

The only serious nuclear accident we ever had was on the Department of
Energy's watch (Carter Administration)
We did a lot better when it was being watched by an agency that ONLY
regulated nukes, (the AEC) not the huge bureaucracy Carter invented.


Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.

DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.



We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding
entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week,
Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded
pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is
80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same
deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell
them.

Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term
problem.

Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it
but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem.
If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it
would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have
killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated
all of their companies.

The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M
people vs 400!

I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net
worth it is about 1.5 trillion.

And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would
be too much to handle for them, apparently.


They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit.

It would go a long way toward doing just that.

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.


The real question is how many of those people would actually pay that
tax. The really rich people would find a way to shelter that income.
When you hear those stories about Eisenhower's 90% tax rate, you don't
hear about all the tax shelters that kept anyone from actually paying
that rate. Reagan was the one who removed the lion's share of those
shelters, in the 1986 rewrite of the tax code.

As long as rich people pay for our elections they will not pay the
taxes you think they should pay.

What??? Pay for our elections? Talk to the Supreme Court. The
right-wing on that court has decided the corps are people.


That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft
stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty
fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust
fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few
years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to
get it out and spend it.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what?

Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover.

So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that
important? It isn't.

Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now
and things are not looking better in the out years without some
serious changes.

It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to
the 1940s.

In the 40s we were the engine of manufacturing for the world. Right
now we import a lot more than we make. 24% of our GDP is simply
reselling Chinese goods. Where is this new prosperity going to come
from?

So, you didn't address the question. We're not going back on any level
to 1940-something.

(that is from a study from Harry's alma mater Yale)


That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could
certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off
pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in.
We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support
the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You
still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person.

Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top
earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time.

I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We
simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number
of workers.
The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and
trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately
business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by
rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll,
lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real
age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These
people are also taking their SS at 62.

It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty
of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow
damaging to the system. It isn't.

We are already in trouble.

We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing
fear bs.

Oh you believe in the trust fund myth?
Very few economists agree with you.

Really? Unfortunately, for you, they do. Try again.



That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the
number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for
it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the
door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I
will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money
into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke,
throwing it back on the government.

I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me
you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits.


It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in
if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore.

So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of
the country out of your paranoia.

OK I will take your word for it. Everything is fine.

Never said that, but you're not willing to look at anything but
absolutes. That's intellectually lazy.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:33 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:10:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic.

Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to
insult me.


Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are
unsustainable?

Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem.
It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the
long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but
that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep
enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit
reduction amount a short while ago.

That is what brought down the Greek economy

We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some
people...

They said GM was too big to fail. Here is a hint, that was hogwash. US
is NOT too big to fail, and in fact is going through that right now.
Too big to fail instantly, yes, too big to fail - nope.

Sure... throw people out on the street... that's the right-wing
solution to the economy!


Smart money is leaving the US. Look at the stocks, those with foreign
content are doing better than pure domestic plays. Even Warrent Buffet
knows this.

You're not smart. You left. Therefore, the dumb people are leaving.

Obama is a debt monger, debt worshiper. And there is no known route to
wealth through excessive unmanageable debt. Iceland tried the very
policy Obama is trying, it failed miserably. Iceland tried this before
too, in 1974 they had 43% inflation. Today, they have high
unemployment, stagnant economy and basic minimum wages.

Look at Japans lost decades.

Look at the racist/birthers... like yourself.

UK devalued the pound by 30% once, took the economy more than a decade
to recover.

Fact remains, and no liberalism will ever override reality.... you can't
debt-spend your way out of a debt problem.

In Debt We Trust -- Obama.

That spells economic doom. Might take decades, might take days, but be
sure the future in debt is not bright.

Never invest in a chronic debtor, you lose money that way.

Never could a black man do a good job, apparently.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:11:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

Agreed, it will be at least a generation of poverty.

Agreed, you're an idiot with no business acumen.

On 18/02/2011 10:38 PM, wrote:

That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could
certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off
pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in.
We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support
the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You
still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person.

Most people, a huge majority, probably 80% or more would have been
better off if Social Security was deposited into a non-redeemable IRA.
A huge part of why Social Security is failing is because of government
skimming and bamboozling, not because enough wasn't paid.

For example, government borrows Social Security moneys for literally 6%
below it's real market value. Collected assets don't even track
inflation. By setting interest rates well below real market, they can
borrow SS for nothing. Over time this depreciates the value of SS.

At this point the fraud on SS has indeed already occured. So moving
forward, yep, there isn't enough money coming in. But I read even if
the US government didn't spend one sent on payout of SS, yet still had
the income, total bankruptcy is still inevitable. That is, the debt
problem is so huge that nothing short of a 66% reduction in government
spending will have a chance in hell. Either that or taxes must triple.

USA may very well be past the tipping point into perpetual structural
debt. Hyper-stagflation is inevitable. And with it, no one wants to
invest in a stagnant depreciating economy. If you tried to tripple US
taxation on business, they would leave the US in flocks. Some already are.

Obama has set the stage for USA bankruptcy. I really think the idea is
to accumulate all the debt into the US Fed then declare it bankrupt. At
which oint USD becoems worthless like toilet paper.

Did you know Washington DC creates more new dollars than the US consumes
in sheets of toilet paper?

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. *;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns.

A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with.
Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support
the constitution?

Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better
because you've got no clothes otherwise.

Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the
knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't
win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming
to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?"

Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of
freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you
sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is
surely not in understanding politics or people.

One guy with a long gun, compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded

Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE

Here is another advocate of "free speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp

I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd?

http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash-
left-behind/

Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the
Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in
full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said
happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a
rally and stopped by as far as you know.

You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and
destruction yet the video shows just the opposite.

Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied.

I sure hope that was a joke.

No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about
something happening on the steps of congress.

There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A
group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof
beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the
Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll.

That's not proof that she lied and you know it.

It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have
to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are
clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from
daylight, when the tapes came out.

Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't
happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation
of the world, to start with.

There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time,
from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied.

Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't
mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that
incident and you know it, or you should know it.

But you are wrong. Every angle was covered during the event, video and
audio were quite clear. The story as she told it did not add up and the
audio was conclusive. That's why with a dozen or more professional
videographers, several working for Pelosi herself as she trolled for an
incident, even with $100,000 on the line, not one shred of audio or
video even came close to squaring with Pelosi's story, much less any
evidence of it's truthfulness. She made it up, she lied, period.

Are you really trying to say that every single utterence by someone was
covered? HORSE****. You have NO PROOF that that she lied.