Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #31 
sbmom - Not sure we are on the same subject either.  If you're offended at my support for SS, and it's requirement that people set aside money for their old age so I don't have to use my tax dollars to help when they're old, then please tell me what we'd do in your world.  How would you make it so I didn't have to help sick and broke old folks with my savings?
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
woody - I don't where to begin.  Let's start with the false statement that Government is taking the SS money.  If the Government needs to borrow a trillion dollars, they can borrow it from the trust fund or China.  In woody's program if people are keeping their money then I suppose Uncle Sam will borrow it directly from the people.  That's whose carrying most our debt today anyway.  That inaccurate comment about raiding the lockbox needs to disappear one of these days. 

Secondly, there is no guarantee one will have more money investing on their own.  I've seen many rich people lose their investments.  How about China?  Why do you think they lend money to the USA as opposed to lending it to business or investing in stock market for greater returns?  Because the US is the safest investment around and that is what's needed to guarantee a SS retirement fund.

As for the rest of your comments, they're mostly irrelevant to me.  I simply want people to put money away so they won't be a burden to me later in life.  Was your program mandatory and guaranteed?  Same goes with health needs.  Everyone should be required to invest in covering their own health needs be they needed today or when they're old.  We're doing that now.


Well if you don't know where to begin, how about starting by dismantling the Ponzi scheme that takes 6.2% of a wage earners income, and the matching 6.2% from the employer, and allows the government to use it for programs other than the funding of individual retirement. I am giving you a homework assignment. Find out how much of each SS tax dollar confiscated from individuals, and employers, is used for actual retirement  pension payments to retirees, that contributed to the SS system. The next homework assignment would request that you provide the amount of SS funds that are diverted to any and all other expenses not directly related to paying pensions to those that have contributed to the SS program.  

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #33 
Nice woody.
__________________
Susan
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #34 
DC - the scenario that you've described is exactly what you are getting with Obamacare.  Have you not noticed employers cutting back on hours, and/or cutting benefits, to respond to the cost increases?

Your beloved Obamacare is causing more people to become uninsured than insured.

I thought the POTUS promised that everyone could keep their existing plan?

The answer to the above is simple:  the long term goal of the Dems is to create a national health care system, and if they screw over a few, or 10 or 30 million Americans along the way, hey, it's worth it in the their minds.  They must have decided that these are acceptable collateral damage numbers.

So much for the caring party.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DietCoke
Interesting comment made at a Ted Cruz rally recently.  A woman stood up and said she lost her health insurance and had to go to Mexico to buy her diabetes medications, because she couldn't afford the prices in the US.  She asked Cruz what he was going to do to help the six million uninsured Texans?  Before he could respond, someone in the crowd yelled out "We can take care of ourselves."

Really?  Almost everyone who gets their health insurance through their employer is only a day away from being uninsured.  Unless you are independently wealthy, this could be devastating.  Buying private insurance is extremely costly and usually comes with a very high deductible.  Only generic medications may be covered.  Lifetime caps may be exhausted.  Networks may be limited.  If you get cancer or need a bypass or whatever, forget about going to Mayo or Johns Hopkins, as they probably aren't going to be in your network.  And if you have had cancer or diabetes or a stroke or migraines or ear infections, count on anything related to them to be excluded as pre-existing conditions.  And if you can't afford to get your own health insurance, just pray every night that you don't get sick, because the resulting medical bills could force you into bankruptcy.

Is this what Republicans want again?  Because this is what health care reform tries to take care of.  How can you possibly oppose these provisions?  But if "Obamacare" is defunded or repealed, this is where we will be again.

Interesting articles about Clint Murphy, a former GOP staffer, who now supports "Obamacare".  This could be you.  Or you son or daughter.  Or your grandchild.  Is this what you really want for yourself - and them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/clint-murphy-obamacare_n_3781538.html

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/aug/17/two-changing-views-top-and-bottom-gop-health-care-/


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #35 
Dewey -

In spite of the fact that you continue to say so, I'm not sure that I remember hearing anyone say that SS should be abolished.  Several of us have said it needs reform before it goes broke, or that it should be audited for fraud and waste (aren't the disability scams paid through SS?), and possibly even that it could be managed better.

The nanny state, that you like to continue to talk about, involves a whole lot more than SS or Medicare.  Until you understand that, I'm not sure where this thread can go.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #36 
Dewey, you must have misread a portion of my post.  I paid in to SS for a very long time working several jobs including as a welder, machinist, Park and Recreation Director, Jewelry Store Salesman, ...  However I am now on the State pension plan via the Teacher Retirement System and so, I am no longer eligible to get SS.  In the State of Illinois, all of us in education are in fear that the pension plan will go bust before we retire.  I am afraid that I might have to keep on working because I can't depend upon it. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #37 
CoachB - Interesting.  I know a retired California fire captain who draws his pension from the County and draws SS because he worked long enough to qualify.  I'm amazed you cannot draw SS, (just googled to read a bit about your situation).  Here is an article on the Illinois pension troubles.  In any event, I'm not sure what we're discussing.  Your situation confirms the greatness of SS because with the full backing of the US Government, your retirement is safer.  Kind of explains why designing your own retirement is not necessarily better.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself too much, the thread is an explanation on how I see our social programs reducing my tax obligations as opposed to others who see them as part of a nanny state.  I might have been against you guys opting out of SS because now, if Illinois pensions go broke, we'll have a lot of poor former teachers that society will have to help support, (not you as you said), meaning higher taxes for me.  Hopefully, you now understand why I want everyone funding their own retirement, hopefully somewhere safe.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #38 
Dewey - do people get everything back that they put into SS?  If not, why is that?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey - do people get everything back that they put into SS?  If not, why is that?


pabar - It's actuarial.  Like any defined benefit plan, some will die young and draw out less while some will live longer.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #40 
Dewey, after contributing all their working life to SS, are the contributors to SS allowed to pass down their confiscated earnings, and that of their employers, to those that inherit their estate? If not, where did that 12.4% of their entire life's work go to?
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #41 
woody - As I said, it's a defined benefit plan.  There is no inheritance.  That would take enormous sums of investment and is totally unnecessary to care for the individual at hand.  People like me are only interested in making certain folks have contributed during their working years enough to make themselves self reliant.  If they manage to save more than that, all the power to them.  I'm only concerned with freeing me from any obligation.  Their kids can follow in their own SS program.  Not sure what any of this has to do with my explanation as to why I support SS and the other social programs.  Feel free to explain how I'd be better off in the "woody" retirement program and let me know what we'd do with old people who ended up broke?  That's the point of this thread.  How do you win folks over to your point of view if you can't spell out clearly how the Country works if we did it your way?  I get the feeling most of you don't even want to try.  It's just easier to repeat "big government" and "nanny state". 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #42 
Dewey there is no need to justify things with someone that never admits any fault , etc..  why bother.  But you sure are classic liberal, let em talk and they continu to show more and more how little they care and how truly selfish they are.
__________________
Susan
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #43 
No, it is not a "defined benefit plan". A defined benefit plan provides a prospectus,accurately records individual contributions, and distributions. A defined benefit plan also is required to show a fund's operating expenses, and a defined benefit plan also allows rights of inheritance to designated beneficiaries. Please try again, you are flailing about in the deep end of the pool.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #44 
woody - It's been 25 years since I made the decision on the pension plan I put into place so I can't remember it all.  You are correct, there are many different ways to set one up.  The SS plan, imo, is a "akin" to a defined benefit plan where only the spouse might see some benefits, (no, you're not getting a prospectus, etc.).  Not sure why we're getting into the weeds here.  The SS plan is similar to the second example below:

How will retirement benefits be paid?

Many defined benefit plans allow you to choose how you want your benefits to be paid. Payment options commonly offered include:

 

  • A single life annuity: You receive a fixed monthly benefit until you die; after you die, no further payments are made to your survivors.
  • A qualified joint and survivor annuity: You receive a fixed monthly benefit until you die; after you die, your surviving spouse will continue to receive benefits (in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of your benefit) until his or her death.
  • A lump-sum payment: You receive the entire value of your plan in a lump sum; no further payments will be made to you or your survivors.
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #45 
dewey, it really is not like a defined benefit plan at all.  You just like to call it that to make it sound better.   Not only can the spouse get money, but kids can too.
__________________
Susan
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #46 
Dewey - as you described it, it's a Ponzi scheme.  It takes more people putting in to fund those retiring who are progressively getting older.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #47 
Dewey - we have to get in to the "weeds" in order to correct your errors.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #48 
seems like SS disability numbers have increased significantly under the obama administration.  Any libtards watching the 60 Minutes program on the abuse involved in our disability program under the nanny state leader BHO?
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,181
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
seems like SS disability numbers have increased significantly under the obama administration.  Any libtards watching the 60 Minutes program on the abuse involved in our disability program under the nanny state leader BHO?


Yes, the numbers have increased.  As they have over the past 2 decades.  But let's blame Obama for all these people faking illnesses and disabilities, are too lazy to work, and are just trying to scam the system.  And doctors who are facilitating these bogus claims and appeals.  And a lagging economic recovery with no substantive jobs bills (promised by Republicans in 2010) passed in recent years.  It's definitely all Obama's fault.  And it's only Democrats that are taking advantage of this scam.  Yeah, right.

There is definitely much abuse in the disability system.  Reference my prior posts on the Long Island Railroad workers.  We have to make it more difficult to get disability benefits so only those with legitimate disabilities and true need get them.  When it's more attractive to collect SSI and, in two years, Medicare benefits, than it is to collect unemployment or to find a job, something needs to be fixed.



This is some interesting information from a 2005 (note - pre-Obama) research paper -

The share of the U.S. population receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) benefits has risen rapidly over the past two decades, from 2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005. While the share of adults on DI in the U.S. today is still lower than that in most other developed countries, the recent growth of the DI program nonetheless poses significant risks to the finances of the Social Security system. Over the past two decades, the share of total Social Security spending accounted for by DI has risen from 10 percent to 17 percent. In 2005, cash payments to DI beneficiaries topped $85 Billion. DI recipients are also eligible for Medicare two years after the onset of their disability, further boosting the cost of the program.

In The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding (NBER Working Paper 12436), research-ers David Autor and Mark Duggan explore both the causes and consequences of the recent growth in the DI program. They also examine the success of the DI screening process in distinguishing meritorious claims and consider potential reforms to the DI program.

Since its introduction in 1956, the DI program has insured workers against the risk of being unable to work due to disability. To be insured for DI, a person must have worked at least five of the last ten years; currently, more than 80 percent of non-elderly adults in the U.S. meet this criterion. To be awarded DI benefits, individuals must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or last for at least a year and that prevents them from engaging in "substantial gainful activity." DI applicants go through a medical screening process and may appeal if their initial claim is denied; many applicants do appeal and a significant share of decisions are overturned during the appeals process.

The authors first take up the question of why the disability rolls have grown. The most important factor is the liberalization of the DI screening process that occurred due to a 1984 (note - under Reagan)  law. This law directed the Social Security Administration to place more weight on applicants' reported pain and discomfort, relax its screening of mental illness, consider applicants with multiple non-severe ailments, and give more credence to medical evidence provided by the applicant's doctor.

These changes had the effect of both increasing the number of new DI awards and shifting their composition towards claimants with low-mortality disorders. For example, the share of awards for a primary impairment of mental illness rose from 16 percent in 1983 to 25 percent in 2003, while the share for a primary impairment of musculoskeletal disorders (primarily back pain) rose from 13 per-cent in 1983 to 26 percent in 2003.

A second factor is the rising value of DI benefits relative to potential labor market earnings. As the authors explain, this increase is not due to any legislative intent. Rather, the interaction of increasing income inequality and the DI benefit formula means that low-income workers now have a larger share of their pre-disability income replaced at the 90 percent rate and less at the 32 or 15 percent rate. Similarly, there has been a substantial rise in the real value of Medicare received by DI beneficiaries. The authors estimate that the DI replacement rate (including the value of Medicare) for a low-income older male worker rose from 68 percent in 1984 to 86 per-cent in 2004.

By contrast, the authors estimate that the aging of the U.S. population has made only a modest contribution to the growth of the DI program, accounting for 6 percent of the increase. Changes in the health of the population are also deemed to have had a small effect at most.

Next, the authors ask what share of disability recipients are undeserving of their benefit awards ("cheating"). This is a difficult task, as there are no systematic, objective data on the work capacity of DI recipients. Previous studies have established that the labor force participation rate of DI applicants would be 30 to 40 percentage points higher in the absence of the DI program and that this figure has been stable over the years. While this might suggest that today's DI applicants are no more likely to be work-capable than past appli-cants, the authors' evidence suggests otherwise. In previous research, they find that the responsiveness of DI applicants to adverse labor market shocks rose sharply between 1984 and 1998, leading them to conclude that "a growing fraction of discouraged and displaced workers are seeking DI benefits."

Turning to assess the DI screening process, the authors' view is that the process is effectively broken. They note that despite re-peated efforts by the Social Security Administration to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of the process, it has evolved into an adversarial process relying heavily on appeals and adjudication. In recent years, nearly forty percent of total DI awards were granted during the appeals process, up from 20 percent in the late 1970s. In one recent year, the Social Security Administration was forced to pay nearly a half a billion dollars to claimants' attorneys.

The authors also argue that because the definition of disability adopted in 1984 is quite broad, the DI program often functions in practice as an insurance program for unemployable workers. For example, when 130,000 DI beneficiaries whose primary impairment was drug or alcohol addiction were removed from the DI rolls in 1996, two-thirds of the terminated claimants managed to re-qualify for DI under a different impairment.

Looking ahead, the authors project that the DI program will continue to grow until its rolls include almost 7 percent of the non-elderly adult population, a 70 percent increase over today's enrollment rate. This increase would obviously strain the finances of Social Security and Medicare - the 1.8 percent payroll tax that now covers the DI program would be inadequate, leaving fewer funds available to pay other Social Security benefits, and DI recipients would claim an even bigger share of total Medicare expenditures than the 15 percent they do today.

The authors conclude by considering possible reforms to the DI program. Past experience suggests that efforts to remove people from the DI rolls are not productive, as denied recipients often find their way back on to the program and the public backlash to these removals can aggravate the situation. Tightening the screening process holds more promise, though it seems likely that more deserving applicants would also be denied benefits as a result. Two reforms with more potential are to allow the Social Security Administration to commission independent medical evaluations during the initial screening process and to be represented by an attorney at Administrative Law Judge hearings. The authors suggest that these reforms would be likely to raise the rejection rate for non-deserving claims while lowering it for deserving claims.

Two more radical options are to make it easier for individuals to obtain health insurance, so that DI is not serving as the insurer of last resort for work-capable people, and to introduce a graduated scale of DI payments, so that those with more severe impairments receive larger benefits. These changes are not without drawbacks, however - the first would cost money and the second might induce more relatively healthy people to apply for DI.

As the authors note, there are no easy fixes for the DI programs. However, "the cost of postponing reforms to DI may eventually come to appear even more daunting than the cost of facing them promptly."



Some interesting data from the ssa.gov website -

 
 Awards bIn current payment statusTerminations c
Time periodNumber
of appli-
cations a
NumberIncrease
over prior
period
Percent
of appli-
cations
Number
at end
of period
Increase
over prior
period
NumberIncrease
over prior
period
Termi-
nation
rate
by calendar year—
1998 .....1,169,255608,1313.53%52.01%4,698,3194.22%409,833-11.53%8.36%
1999 .....1,200,087620,4882.03%51.70%4,879,4553.86%434,4896.02%8.51%
2000 .....1,330,558621,6500.19%46.72%5,042,3343.34%461,6266.25%8.72%
2001 .....1,498,559691,30911.21%46.13%5,274,1834.60%456,258-1.16%8.31%
2002 .....1,682,454750,4648.56%44.61%5,543,9815.12%479,6065.12%8.34%
2003 .....1,895,521777,9053.66%41.04%5,873,6735.95%450,720-6.02%7.46%
2004 .....2,137,531797,2262.48%37.30%6,201,3625.58%466,3323.46%7.32%
2005 .....2,122,109832,2014.39%39.22%6,524,5825.21%494,5926.06%7.36%
2006 .....2,134,088812,596-2.36%38.08%6,811,6794.40%513,2923.78%7.28%
2007 .....2,190,196823,1061.29%37.58%7,101,3554.25%525,0122.28%7.14%
2008 .....2,320,396895,0118.74%38.57%7,427,2034.59%564,5187.52%7.34%
2009 .....2,816,244985,94010.16%35.01%7,789,1134.87%628,47811.33%7.79%
2010 .....2,935,7981,052,5516.76%35.85%8,204,7105.34%646,3872.85%7.64%
2011 .....2,878,9201,025,003-2.62%35.60%8,576,0674.53%656,9021.63%7.42%
2012 .....2,820,812979,973-4.39%34.74%8,827,7952.94%726,43210.58%7.90%

 


__________________
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," - John F. Kennedy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #50 
DietCoke - History only matters as it relates to this President.  None of these members ever complained here when a Republican was running the Executive branch and these problems grew.  In any event, anyone who feels average citizens, like you and me, should pitch in and pay for the health-care needs of those who refuse to buy their own insurance, despite the fact they can afford it, has lost the right to complain about nanny state, imo.  Well, I suppose they can do it but I'll ignore them.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #51 
That's funny barney.  You read each and every post because you can't stand it that someone dislikes your mancrush.  You started the week with a big funny. 

Ignore them, LMAO you read them all because you regurgitate what what said about the clown in later posts. 

Yeah, you are the dictator of who loses rights. that's funny funny stuff
"has lost the right to complain" 
[roflmao]

on a self reliance thread you speak of more handouts and don't even see the irony.  The current topic was the big increase in disability claims as shown on 60 minutes, you must have been at 10U all star game

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,181
Reply with quote  #52 
kir, instead of attacking Dewey, do you have any comments on the material in my post? 

Maybe like why the first 4 years of the Bush administration saw annual increases of disability awards of 11.21%, 8.56%, 3.66% and 2.48% while the increases during Obama's first 4 years was 10.16%, 6.76%, -2.62% and -4.39%.  The number of applications were up, but the big jumps started in 2008 and continued into 2009 and 2010, which were coincidentally the worst years of the recent recession.

How about we keep things civil here and debate the issues, without the sarcasm, name-calling and insults?

__________________
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," - John F. Kennedy
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #53 
How bout you post what the hell you want and I'll do the same. I would ask you to quit with all the links that are off topic but you have the right to be off topic. Now quit stalking my posts before I elevate your blood pressure.

My problem with dewey [of the hundreds I can name] is that his punk ass thinks he can take away or grant rights we already have as Americans. Dewey cannot take my rights away from his little hello kitty keyboard

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #54 
Dewey - enough with the "nobody ever commented about Bush when he was president . . ."  I went back and looked and there was absolutely no political commentary in this forum by either side while Bush was president.  Why that is I don't know.  Maybe people were on other forums.  Maybe someone finally started a political thread when Obama was president and it took off from there.  It really doesn't matter.  The fact that there was no commentary doesn't mean there was no opinion.  Your constant complaint about this is meaningless and does nothing to advance the discussion.

Besides, you and DC have more than made up for it by slamming Bush every time you get boxed into a corner about Obama's failings and have no valid response.  Then your go-to strategy is always about Bush.

Obama has been president for five years.  He promised much and has delivered almost nothing EXCEPT - fundamentally transforming this country which we're all just starting to pay for now.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #55 
real - Suggetion: Read Marshall McLuane"s (SP?) book "The Medium is the Message".  When some folks tell you that your posts are too ascerbic, perhaps you should consider their thoughts.  Perhaps it would increase your audience for your fervent beliefs.  At present, your posts appear to be more personally cathartic than informative perhaps.  Obviously just a suggestion for you to think about or ignore.  By the way, at one level your "you write what you want to and I'll write what I want to is acceptable".  It exists in the "don't tell me what to do" area of personal thought.  Best Wishes and hope that you take this as a simple suggestion to be given some thought and not an "attack".      Frank
PS - Diet Coke has a point to be considered in his/her last sentence of his/her last post.  A little respect for each other would go a long way toward considering each others' ideas instead of responding with equally emotional diatribes.  

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #56 
pabar - Could you please explain "fundamentally transforming the nation"?   Thanks,  Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #57 
Joisey, a suggestion to your suggestion, butt out. I don't care to increase my audience, I dont' care about your popularity contest.  If I want your opinion I will ask for it.  I am sick and tired of the left telling me how to act, what to say or how to believe.  That is how we find ourselves where we are now.   Now eff off, respectfully of course.



"At present, your posts appear to be more personally cathartic than informative perhaps."

Don't read them, Ignore them like dewey lies about but then he can quote them verbatim a couple of days later

i would also suggest that if you would quit referring to the washington way and defending your buddy dewdy then you could increase your readership.  people find you repetitive.  emotional diatribes?  you and dewdy are so full of yourselves just like your prez

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #58 
JG - ask Obama what he meant when he said that.  What i'm seeing is the federal government usurping 1/6th of the nation's economy.  What I see is this government deciding that the US is not and should not be the leader of the free world.  What I see is an unprecedented compromise of our basic liberties under this administration through NSA spying and forced participation in a healthcare marketplace.  What I see is a president with no leadership qualities at all.  Yes, I see fundamental transformation.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #59 
Joisey, while you are here, you got anything to add that is thread specific? Did you see 60 minutes last night or not, was the current discussion.  

If you would like to make better use of your time save the self-help for others that may solicit your sage, old advice

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #60 
real - OK.  Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.