"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...



We used to see the active proselytizers at the front door several
times
a month when we lived in the south, but not so much here. If the
doorbell rings during the day, the odds are the callers are from a
local
church whose members are out trying to drum up business for Sunday. I
don't mind that. If the "door cam" tells me they're black, I'll
usually
answer and open the door and say hello, because I know a few of the
black ministers down here and it is likely the callers are from one of
those churches.

---------------------------------------

Merrily we troll along .... troll along ..... troll along ....

On 4/6/13 10:44 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...



We used to see the active proselytizers at the front door several times
a month when we lived in the south, but not so much here. If the
doorbell rings during the day, the odds are the callers are from a local
church whose members are out trying to drum up business for Sunday. I
don't mind that. If the "door cam" tells me they're black, I'll usually
answer and open the door and say hello, because I know a few of the
black ministers down here and it is likely the callers are from one of
those churches.

---------------------------------------

Merrily we troll along .... troll along ..... troll along ....


Saying that I don't mind the occasional callers trying to drum up Sunday
business is trolling?

On 4/6/2013 10:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

We used to see the active proselytizers at the front door several times
a month when we lived in the south, but not so much here. If the
doorbell rings during the day, the odds are the callers are from a local
church whose members are out trying to drum up business for Sunday. I
don't mind that. If the "door cam" tells me they're black, I'll usually
answer and open the door and say hello, because I know a few of the
black ministers down here and it is likely the callers are from one of
those churches.

You only open the door and say "Hi" to black people? Isn't that just a
tad bit racist?

On 4/6/2013 10:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/6/13 10:44 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...



We used to see the active proselytizers at the front door several times
a month when we lived in the south, but not so much here. If the
doorbell rings during the day, the odds are the callers are from a local
church whose members are out trying to drum up business for Sunday. I
don't mind that. If the "door cam" tells me they're black, I'll usually
answer and open the door and say hello, because I know a few of the
black ministers down here and it is likely the callers are from one of
those churches.

---------------------------------------

Merrily we troll along .... troll along ..... troll along ....


Saying that I don't mind the occasional callers trying to drum up Sunday
business is trolling?

Well, you did throw in the *black* qualifier a couple of times, Mr.
Harry Krause the racist.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 01:53:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:44:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

My wife can kick your ass and I don't take you seriously in any way.
What's your point?

How many guys' asses has she kicked?

More than a few.

Cite? Oh, you're just blowin smoke. Nevermind.

On 4/4/2013 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:42:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Anecdotes don't "prove" much of anything

Julie's flaw is she is using the current tax going forward. There is
NO baby boomer who paid more than $104,000 between 1966 and 1996 (both
employer and employee contribution)
I have my SSA statement in my hand and I paid the max every one of
those years. Prior to 96 the cap was $4800 and the tax rate was lower
so those will be very small numbers.

I agree a Gen Xer probably won't get back all he paid in and may not
really get much of anything. Sorry.


Don't point out Julie Morse's flaw.
Urin Asshole is invested in what she wrote as the gospel and will not
entertain any evidence that she could be wrong.

Also did you find any way to contact her?
I want her to set the record straight, but find no email
or any way to subscribe to the webpage.

SS payments are progressive, meaning the more you pay in
the longer it takes to get it back, and the less you pay
in the the shorter your payback time.

Mikek

PS Urin, please don't recycle the tired old names you've been calling
me, be a little creative. :-)

On 4/4/2013 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:44:34 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:03:28 -0400, wrote:


Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****.

I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name.

Feel free to invite all the crazies to your house. I think enough
about my and my family's well being to be a bit more prudent.

Cowardly punk hiding in your basement spewing bull**** anonymously.



That is why we don't really take you seriously.


Could we just start with his screen name.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:32:09 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 4/4/2013 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:42:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Anecdotes don't "prove" much of anything

Julie's flaw is she is using the current tax going forward. There is
NO baby boomer who paid more than $104,000 between 1966 and 1996 (both
employer and employee contribution)
I have my SSA statement in my hand and I paid the max every one of
those years. Prior to 96 the cap was $4800 and the tax rate was lower
so those will be very small numbers.

I agree a Gen Xer probably won't get back all he paid in and may not
really get much of anything. Sorry.


Don't point out Julie Morse's flaw.
Urin Asshole is invested in what she wrote as the gospel and will not
entertain any evidence that she could be wrong.

Also did you find any way to contact her?
I want her to set the record straight, but find no email
or any way to subscribe to the webpage.

SS payments are progressive, meaning the more you pay in
the longer it takes to get it back, and the less you pay
in the the shorter your payback time.

Mikek

PS Urin, please don't recycle the tired old names you've been calling
me, be a little creative. :-)

Ok. Go **** yourself. Do you feel better now?

SS benefits are based on your highest earning 35 years. You don't know
anything about how SS works. Yeah, if you pay in more it takes longer
to get it all back. No ****.

"Social Security was designed to redistribute income from those with
higher lifetime earnings to those with lower lifetime earnings. The
reason is obvious: the system was created to ensure an adequate
retirement income for the elderly. Less obvious is how Social
Security's many provisions interact to achieve redistribution. This
Straight Talk summarizes the most comprehensive study of those
interactions to date, concluding that less-educated, lower-income, and
nonwhite groups benefit little or not at all from redistribution in
the old age and survivors insurance (OASI) part of Social Security.
However, there is substantial redistribution to women, who
historically have had lower lifetime earnings than men. A succeeding
Straight Talk will examine how the addition of disability insurance
restores some progressivity.1

The Social Security program redistributes income in five major ways:
1.From richer workers to poorer workers through a progressive benefit
formula that provides higher returns to the first dollars of worker
earnings and lower returns to the last dollars;2
2.From shorter-lived groups (such as men and the less educated) to
longer-lived groups (such as women and the better educated) through
annuities whose lifetime value depends upon life expectancy;
3.From singles to married couples (and from higher earners to lower
earners within couples) through spousal and survivors' benefits, paid
as a pure transfer without any additional contributions required;
4.From the healthy to the disabled through disability benefits; and
5.From later generations to earlier generations, since earlier
generations paid in at lower tax rates than later generations, yet
receive benefits related to their prior earnings (rather than, as in
private insurance, their actual contributions)."

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:33:21 -0500, amdx
wrote:



Show yourself... please not in public. That's a metaphor.

A metaphor or your way to dodge the question.

Whatever. Fart some more in public if you think it makes you look
smarter.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:37:41 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 4/4/2013 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:44:34 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:03:28 -0400, wrote:


Ok Mr. ****head. Is that your name? It's certainly your bull****.

I think enough about my opinions that I sign them with my real name.

Feel free to invite all the crazies to your house. I think enough
about my and my family's well being to be a bit more prudent.

Cowardly punk hiding in your basement spewing bull**** anonymously.



That is why we don't really take you seriously.


Could we just start with his screen name.

Yeah, AMDX... what does that stand for... Am Mostly Dense eXactly.