A_boaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote:


The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.

I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.

Bull****.

You're right! The chronic liar said he wasn't a union member.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:25:54 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article 29db3de8-e198-4859-bf21-b04c005ad248
, says...

Apparently, it is up to the Prez to determine which govt personnel are
"essential" to get paid and Clinton paid the military during the '95
shutdown. Obama has decided military are "nonessential" yet they are
required to work for possible pay later. Basically, Obama has decided
to make them work as slaves without compensation. DOES THIS SURPRISE
ANYBODY? Statists, regardless of what they claim, all believe in
slavery to the state. For Obama, "L'etat et Moi"

The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:25:54 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article 29db3de8-e198-4859-bf21-b04c005ad248
, says...

Apparently, it is up to the Prez to determine which govt personnel are
"essential" to get paid and Clinton paid the military during the '95
shutdown. Obama has decided military are "nonessential" yet they are
required to work for possible pay later. Basically, Obama has decided
to make them work as slaves without compensation. DOES THIS SURPRISE
ANYBODY? Statists, regardless of what they claim, all believe in
slavery to the state. For Obama, "L'etat et Moi"

The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view. As to "the war" Obama promised to end it, he has not, he has
expanded it in some ways, killing enough civilians to get Pakastan to
tell us to leave, he engineered the Egypt eruption and sparked the
unrest in the Middle East, after killing our own oil resources at home.
What about his promise to keep oil prices low, close Gitmo, be open
about who is visiting the Whitehouse?

Someday when you get by your red herring of "racist", and involve your
brain in the debate, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you are
just a typical, non-empathetic, selfish, self indulgent, progressive
with no need or desire to understand others rights and needs...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:59:21 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

HAHAHAHAHAAH

As to "the war" Obama promised to end it, he has not, he has
expanded it in some ways, killing enough civilians to get Pakastan to
tell us to leave,

yeah. he's aggressive. doesnt do much for your racist view of him as a
traitor, does it, kluxer?

see...this is where you get yourself in trouble. you're not too
bright. you depend on a steady stream of bull**** from the guys whose
asses you suck...glen and rush

so you spew your racist hatred of obama...that he's not
aggressive...that he's a traitor

THEN when it's shown he IS aggressive, you move the goal posts.

THAT is proof of racism


he engineered the Egypt eruption and sparked the
unrest in the Middle East, after killing our own oil resources at home.

and THAT is ALSO racism

you think arabs are stupid? that they cant fight for their freedom?
you think obama's wrong for NOT wanting us to get in ANOTHER war??

how many freakin' wars do you right wingers want??

What about his promise to keep oil prices low, close Gitmo, be open
about who is visiting the Whitehouse?

gee. let's see. he proposed closing gitmo. and congress's response?
filibuster after filibuster. in fact a RECORD number of filibusters

but at least NOW you're discussing POLICY which you REFUSED to do
before, characterizing the president as 'bin laden'.

you should be ASHAMED of that. THAT is why our country is so
polarized. while i believe bush was a tool of wall street and didnt
give a damn about working people, i NEVER thought he was a TRAITOR

YOU think the president IS a traitor. THAT is racist


Someday when you get by your red herring of "racist", and involve your
brain in the debate, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you are
just a typical, non-empathetic, selfish, self indulgent, progressive
with no need or desire to understand others rights and needs...

yeah. go ahead and pee your pants, hoping that rush will lead you out
of the darkness

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:59:21 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

This is where your argument loses completely.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:31:23 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

This is where your argument loses completely.


whines the bitchy right winger who called the president of the united
states 'bin laden'.

and has no sense of shame about it.

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, wrote:

That's not clear that it's done. SS will turn around in the next few
years as employment and the economy improve.


Not with the Obama payroll tax cut. It can never recover from that,
even if we had 2006 employment levels.

Oh come on. That's so nonsensical to not past the sniff test.



OK prove it. Tell us the number of employees that rate would add, the
lesser amount you get with a 14% tax cut, then factor in the extra
boomers who have entered the SS benefit program since 2006 and get
back to me.
The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
If you run the spread sheet, taking at 62 breaks even at age 78 or so
for most people. By waiting until 64, I pushed that out to 84 or so.
Of course that assumes you spend the money. I am investing it. That is
a win-win. I get a better return and if I really need it, I have it.


Reply:
The problem is the spending. We can double the amount of income tax
collected and we are still $100 billion short of a balanced budget. first
thing for Congress should do is kill base line budgeting. Who else in the
real world uses a guaranteed 13% increase each year as balanced? Then when
they say they are cutting a program, they will actually cut the money going
to the program. Now they state they are cutting 5% and the program still
gets an 8% increase in money. The US is in really deep ****, and I do not
really know if we can recover without a really bad recession. 1928 bad.
Bob says we can just print more money. Only as long as we are the world's
"Reserve Currency". Was British Pound Sterling for a long time, until they
devalued the pound. World bank is already talking about using SDR's
(Special Drawing Rights) as the new "Reserve Currency". A conglomeration of
weighted currencies. We have over consumed for years. Look at the trade
deficit for the last 40 years. The credit card is overdrawn and we can not
really declare bankruptcy. What we can do is quickly drop to 2nd or 3rd
world nation in purchasing power. Government is way to big, and consuming
way too much resources. We have about 2 times the amount of Federal
employees as we have manufacturing employees. Service Industry? Who will
be able to pay for the services? Obama is proposing a 4-5-6 Trillion debt
reduction over the next 10-12 years. At the most he will be in charge for 5
years. What is he proposing right now? Reductions? Nope, more excess
waste of money!

I_am_Tosk wrote:


The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough...

Now *that* is rich. Scott Ingersoll, arguably the dumbest poster in
rec.boats, commenting on the intelligence of someone else.

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:41:11 -0400, L
wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:13 -0400,
wrote:



wrote:


On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:



On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:



On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:



Are you saying that military budget is a waste?


Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.


I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.


That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.


The problem is figuring a way you could make those products and sell
them at a profit. When it is DoD, cost is no object. That is why the
toilet seat on a P-3 Orion costs $800.


Can you show proof that is still true?

Which part?
That the military builds things they don't need to placate
congressmen's districts? See the C-17 program.
That the military builds things they don't need to create a market
for? That is obvious.
I agree we haven't bought a toilet seat for a P-3 recently because
they have all the P-3s they need but I bet we are spending a
ridiculous price for a widget on the F-22.
We have taken a reasonable goal, providing a credible defense for the
country and let it run amok.


When is the last time you saw the bid results on a government contract?

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:01:41 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

That's not clear that it's done. SS will turn around in the next few
years as employment and the economy improve.


Not with the Obama payroll tax cut. It can never recover from that,
even if we had 2006 employment levels.

Oh come on. That's so nonsensical to not past the sniff test.



OK prove it. Tell us the number of employees that rate would add, the
lesser amount you get with a 14% tax cut, then factor in the extra
boomers who have entered the SS benefit program since 2006 and get
back to me.
The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
If you run the spread sheet, taking at 62 breaks even at age 78 or so
for most people. By waiting until 64, I pushed that out to 84 or so.
Of course that assumes you spend the money. I am investing it. That is
a win-win. I get a better return and if I really need it, I have it.


Reply:
The problem is the spending. We can double the amount of income tax
collected and we are still $100 billion short of a balanced budget. first
thing for Congress should do is kill base line budgeting. Who else in the
real world uses a guaranteed 13% increase each year as balanced? Then
when
they say they are cutting a program, they will actually cut the money going
to the program. Now they state they are cutting 5% and the program still
gets an 8% increase in money. The US is in really deep ****, and I do not
really know if we can recover without a really bad recession. 1928 bad.
Bob says we can just print more money. Only as long as we are the world's
"Reserve Currency". Was British Pound Sterling for a long time, until they
devalued the pound. World bank is already talking about using SDR's
(Special Drawing Rights) as the new "Reserve Currency". A conglomeration
of
weighted currencies. We have over consumed for years. Look at the trade
deficit for the last 40 years. The credit card is overdrawn and we can not
really declare bankruptcy. What we can do is quickly drop to 2nd or 3rd
world nation in purchasing power. Government is way to big, and consuming
way too much resources. We have about 2 times the amount of Federal
employees as we have manufacturing employees. Service Industry? Who will
be able to pay for the services? Obama is proposing a 4-5-6 Trillion debt
reduction over the next 10-12 years. At the most he will be in charge for
5
years. What is he proposing right now? Reductions? Nope, more excess
waste of money!

I heard a report the other day about the number of central banks that
are pulling back on their dollar investments and holding more gold.


Reply:
Chicago Commodity Exchange used to require T-bills for payment. Gold is now
also accepted. China is on a buying spree in the world. They are using
T-bills as quick as they can to buy commodity stuff. Repsol in South
America. China now owns. As well as other oil companies in S.A. What are
they using? T-bills or US dollars. They have reduced their holdings from
about 75% to about 60% of our debt. If they can get it to less than 50%
they may accept killing the dollar and most of America's power. Cheaper
than a shooting war.