In article ,
says...

Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.



Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.

BAR wrote:
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.

But, the government is here to help you.
There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.



Most of the modern nations in this world provide health care to their
inhabitants. We could and should, too. All it will take is drastically
cutting the funds we are wasting on military adventurism, raising taxes
on the wealthy, cutting waste in health care expenditures, and
restructuring our national priorities so they serve ordinary Americans
*first*.

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In article ,
says...

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them
tend to vote republican anyway...



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

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.
So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them
tend to vote republican anyway...





Oohhh..the loogywannabe wants me to respond to him....oohhh.

Ain't gonna happen, crap-for-brains.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:41:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.


Feel free to buy more guns. I'm sure that's your ultimate solution.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

Of course! It's a disaster on the order of biblical disasters. The sky
will turn black and steaming vents will open up if we don't pay off
the entire debt on some made up timeline.