|
My Favorite Tax
|
John, why are you responding to these crossposting idiots???????????
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:53:00 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
John, why are you responding to these crossposting idiots??????????? 'Cause they were talking about my birthday! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:53:00 -0400, "JimH" wrote: John, why are you responding to these crossposting idiots??????????? 'Cause they were talking about my birthday! Careful JohnH...or the self appointed 'administrator' will be rapping your knuckles. |
Cut welfare programs. They make up nearly 55% of the
federal budget. A grossly (and intentionally) inaccurate statement. **************** Actually, about 55-58% of the budget *is* entitlements. The payouts include social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, federal retirement, etc. I guess you could say that 50-some percent of the federal budget goes to "welfare" if you want to clasify virtually every retired person over 62-65 years of age in the US as a "welfare recipient". I'd guess a lot of folks bitching about 50-some percent of the budget going to "welfare" probably get some of that 50-some percent money every month, but would shoot the first person to accuse them of being on "welfare". |
wrote in message ups.com... Cut welfare programs. They make up nearly 55% of the federal budget. A grossly (and intentionally) inaccurate statement. **************** Actually, about 55-58% of the budget *is* entitlements. The payouts include social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, federal retirement, etc. I guess you could say that 50-some percent of the federal budget goes to "welfare" if you want to clasify virtually every retired person over 62-65 years of age in the US as a "welfare recipient". I'd guess a lot of folks bitching about 50-some percent of the budget going to "welfare" probably get some of that 50-some percent money every month, but would shoot the first person to accuse them of being on "welfare". Social Security comes out of the "SS Trust Fund", so is off budget? ;) |
Social Security comes out of the "SS Trust Fund", so is off budget? ;)
********* Something about Google prevents me from posting links here. If your do a search on Federal Budget Pie Chart you will find examples where 50-55% is labeled for entitlements that always include social security. I had a good link, but for some reason I couldn't post it. Maybe the charts are "federal expenditure" vs. federal budget. They're easy to find |
wrote in message oups.com... Social Security comes out of the "SS Trust Fund", so is off budget? ;) ********* Something about Google prevents me from posting links here. If your do a search on Federal Budget Pie Chart you will find examples where 50-55% is labeled for entitlements that always include social security. I had a good link, but for some reason I couldn't post it. Maybe the charts are "federal expenditure" vs. federal budget. They're easy to find I thought we had a Social Security Trust Fund. Seems as if a lot of posters here were telling us that. I guess, I was just mis informed. ;) Bill |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... Cut welfare programs. They make up nearly 55% of the federal budget. A grossly (and intentionally) inaccurate statement. **************** Actually, about 55-58% of the budget *is* entitlements. The payouts include social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, federal retirement, etc. I guess you could say that 50-some percent of the federal budget goes to "welfare" if you want to clasify virtually every retired person over 62-65 years of age in the US as a "welfare recipient". I'd guess a lot of folks bitching about 50-some percent of the budget going to "welfare" probably get some of that 50-some percent money every month, but would shoot the first person to accuse them of being on "welfare". Social Security comes out of the "SS Trust Fund", so is off budget? ;) Don't make me laugh. Off budget? |
Bert, replying to these idiots only encourages their crossposting. There is
also the potential that they will continue to crosspost to this group on future postings. I would guess that is how Krause found this group some 10 years ago. Ignore them. |
Chuck,
There is no Trust Fund. What we need is a lockbox. ; ) wrote in message oups.com... Social Security comes out of the "SS Trust Fund", so is off budget? ;) ********* Something about Google prevents me from posting links here. If your do a search on Federal Budget Pie Chart you will find examples where 50-55% is labeled for entitlements that always include social security. I had a good link, but for some reason I couldn't post it. Maybe the charts are "federal expenditure" vs. federal budget. They're easy to find |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:47:02 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
Ignore them. SHUN THEM!!! MAKE THEM OUTCASTS!!! SHAME THEM!!! |
Bill McKee wrote:
I thought we had a Social Security Trust Fund. No, you didn't. Even after receiving lots of proof, you just shoved your head deeper in the sand and kept on isnisting that not only do we not have a SS Trust Fund, but that the SS Trust Fund we don't have is invested in "worthless" U.S. bonds. ... Seems as if a lot of posters here were telling us that. I guess, I was just mis informed. ;) Yep. But if you actually learned something, you'd have to shed some prejudices and change some of your opinions... and we *KNOW* that ain't gonna ever happen... ;) DSK |
Sure, we shouldn't harden our hearts to the suffering of the poor or
the disabled, that's a horrible thing to do...but why is it the government's job to deal with that, rather than the work of private charity? Why can't we help without being forced at the point of a gun (and do not deny that it is at gunpoint, else what would the IRS' own SWAT teams for, and why does the US government arm IRS agents?) *********** Private charities can and should relieve some of the immediate suffering. The role of government is to create and ensure a just society. Only government can do that. Example: Until the government passed anti-discrimination laws, certain groups of people were relegated to 2nd or 3rd class status without recourse or equitable opportunity for advancement. It was the way "things have always been". Churches had been "preaching" against discrimination for 100 years, all the while distributing basekts of food and worn out clothing to the very same populations the parishoners were discriminating against on a daily basis. To say, "Those folks who choose to go to church can deal with the social problems and the rest of us shouldn't have to worry about them at all" is a very narrow viewpoint. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: I thought we had a Social Security Trust Fund. No, you didn't. Even after receiving lots of proof, you just shoved your head deeper in the sand and kept on isnisting that not only do we not have a SS Trust Fund, but that the SS Trust Fund we don't have is invested in "worthless" U.S. bonds. ... Seems as if a lot of posters here were telling us that. I guess, I was just mis informed. ;) Yep. But if you actually learned something, you'd have to shed some prejudices and change some of your opinions... and we *KNOW* that ain't gonna ever happen... ;) DSK You still are ignorant as hell. And notice no smiley face on this post. There is no trust fund!!! If there was a "Trust Fund" they would not be spending that money for everyday running of the government. In the private world, you go to jail for running a trust fund that way. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com