|
Post by Freebird on Oct 28, 2004 22:30:44 GMT -6
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2004 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.
----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. !
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable forpersons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us .....
then sit back.....
and watch how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 28, 2004 23:02:42 GMT -6
I need to go in to a new line of work. Senator G-stick.
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Oct 28, 2004 23:26:50 GMT -6
Yeah, don't we all makes you think though doesn't it? They could never live the way "normal" people live. If they made what regular people made maybe we(America) would'nt be in such trouble financially. Of course getting them to see that would be like banging your head against a wall. It's going to give you a headache.
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 28, 2004 23:28:09 GMT -6
Ya, seems any system world over has its class distinctions. Phftt. Can't beat em join em.
Congresswoman G-stick
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Oct 29, 2004 2:01:03 GMT -6
I'm sorry but my last 2 posts are incorect concerning S.S. Pay. It was a e-mail a friend sent me. I thought it was true, but it isn't. Le looked it up and sent me the correct item. Although it would'nt suprise me. She gave me the site to look it up at but I don't know how to post sites yet. Le, can you post it for me please? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 29, 2004 2:24:33 GMT -6
|
|
erco
Whooshite Apprentice
Too technologically challenged to insert a picture!
Posts: 118
|
Post by erco on Oct 29, 2004 9:51:10 GMT -6
One thing that I can state as a fact is:
Yesterday I got my SS statement. You know that piece of paper that comes once a year to show you how dismal your future is. It sd. that at the current rate there will not be SS benefits in 14 years.
Not good!
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Oct 29, 2004 20:08:17 GMT -6
No, thats not good. But you can bet they will get theirs(the politicians).Even if no one else does. I can't beleave in just 14 years. Thats not long at all. That means when I retire there wont be anything left. I'm only 40. That's scarry .
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 30, 2004 2:24:05 GMT -6
In 1999, they said SS would run out in 2034. Now they're saying 2018 right on your statement? How Social Security cheats you to pay the richThe truth about Social Security is uglyShould you count on Social Security?5 myths about Social SecurityI'll pretty much have to continue working until the day I die, because I've never had the means to set aside any money, and it doesn't look like I'll be able to start any time soon. If I were to retire at 70 and die at age 100, then I would have to nearly double my income and put half of it into savings in order to live the way I do now, and I'm barely scraping by as it is. Gee, it sure would be nice to find a rich backer who wants to invest in my business. *finds dollar in wallet, plans on buying lotto ticket tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Oct 30, 2004 3:27:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by xengab on Oct 30, 2004 13:33:06 GMT -6
Not much different here in England.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 30, 2004 23:47:49 GMT -6
“We the People”
Politicians are supposed to represent the people, not rob them. I don't know about other countries, but when our government was first formed, a carpenter was supposed to come in, lay down his hammer and saw for a few years to represent his peers, then go back to being a carpenter once his term was up — nobody was supposed to make a career out of politics. What happened to that whole concept, and why can't we find politicians who actually care about the little people?
Most politicians will say anything to the people to get elected, while buddying up to those who will give them the most money. If I were to run for office, I would buddy up to those with the money who could get me elected, then tell commonfolk nothing but the truth in my campaign, making those with the money think that I was telling lies to the public for their support. It seems to me that that's the only way anyone with real morals would ever make it into office, and I'm sure they would only serve one term because they would lose their financial backers after doing something that was actually good for the people.
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Oct 31, 2004 3:38:05 GMT -6
Le, I agree with you, what we need is a modern day Robin Hood. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Instead we have the rich stealing from the poor. Well thats politics I guess, wish we could find a way to reverse it. (wonder)hummm how many people would agree to that? Or how many would fight it.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 3, 2004 15:22:08 GMT -6
Sad but true. Oh, about 10% of the population? I guess it depends on where we set the highest tax bracket.
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Nov 5, 2004 12:35:44 GMT -6
Le, I agree with you, what we need is a modern day Robin Hood. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. The problem with that concept is, of course, that if you try to actually do it the rich will just go somewhere else, taking their money with them, and the poor will have to steal from each other..... Bill K
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 6, 2004 5:38:36 GMT -6
Rubbish. Like I said, if they were going to do it, they already would have.
So, Bill, how do you feel about the fact that the issue which gave the Republicans their extra boost this year is the proposal to ban gay marriage? And all in the name of "moral values." Do you consider it moral to dictate how other people are supposed to live, or do you disagree with your party on this?
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Nov 9, 2004 10:05:48 GMT -6
Rubbish. Like I said, if they were going to do it, they already would have. Is this a response to my post? If so, I don't follow the logic, US tax rates are not so high compared to others. Bill K
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Nov 9, 2004 11:11:59 GMT -6
[quote author=Lesigner Girl link=board=general&thread=1099024244&start=15#1 date=1099741116 So, Bill, how do you feel about the fact that the issue which gave the Republicans their extra boost this year is the proposal to ban gay marriage? And all in the name of "moral values." Do you consider it moral to dictate how other people are supposed to live, or do you disagree with your party on this?[/quote] In politics you take the win however you can get it, 'cause you can't do anything if you don't get elected. That said, I am never comfortable with one group of people dictating to another what they can or can't (reasonably) do, because once you go down that road it's only a matter of time until it'll be your own toes that get stepped on. I can see both points of view on this issue (sounding an awful lot like John Kerry here) but I have friends who you could consider the Christian Right dead set against gay marriage, and I'm not surprised that they were so riled up this time around, as I think they see their traditions, moral values, whatever you choose to call it, being assaulted from all sides, be it gay marriage, 9/11, the Hollywood left, the left wing biased media, and on and on. I suspect Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen, etc., probably produced more votes for the Republicans than they did for the Dems On the other hand, I have friends on the other list who are Lesbians who I'm sure must be disappointed. If they are, I'm disappointed with them. It looks to me like the gay issue got swept up with all the other stuff going on, and that hurt it's chances a lot. A less volitile political climate might have made some difference. While I don't agree with George W. on this issue, at least I'll give him points for taking a stand. I never expect to agree with any politician 100% of the time. As long as he tells me where he is on an issue, OK, I'll deal with that. No government can legislate what is in somebody's heart, so I guess if you're gay and want to be married, you should consider it so, and screw what the gov't is telling you, and keep working on trying to bring a majority around to your point of view. You can't win 'em all, all the time, but that doesn't mean you give up, and I don't think they (the gays) will. Probably not much consolation if you're gay and were counting on at least one state going your way, but the reality, for now anyway. Bill K
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 10, 2004 18:49:24 GMT -6
I don't know how it could be any more logical than what I explained in my other post to you, so I'm sorry if you can't understand it. Translation: Do every underhanded thing you can think of to "win" an election, so you can accomplish your own greedy agenda. So much for "values." Seeing both sides is a GOOD thing, but I don't think what you're seeing of both sides is an accurate representation of either side. You say the media is liberal, yet the mainstream media doesn't report all the wrongdoings this administration has done. The internet is a powerful tool for information. If you're not using it, then you're stuck with whatever the mainstream media frames out for the public. I'm not saying you're supposed to believe everything you read on the internet, and I'm sure you would agree that it's not the most sensible thing to do. But with so many sources out there, and with so many of them apparently so informed, using some logic and investigating the claims with an open mind, you're bound to find the truth somewhere in the mix. Unfortunately, too many people either don't know how, they believe the "news" they're already watching, they don't want to take the time, or they're just too lazy to get the facts for themselves. Since you believe the news is biased in favor of liberals, I would highly recommend that you Google some of this information yourself. Read both sides of the issue from several sources, even including people in other countries, since it is easier for them to be objective, and then let logic tell you what the facts really are. Don't just say, "Well, the media is liberal, so I won't believe anything bad they say about our Republican president," or, "Dubya gave a possible explanation, so I'm just going to leave it at that." It's not that cut and dry, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just being ignorant. There's a lot more I could say, but I don't feel like taking all night on this post. Have a good one.
|
|
|
Post by marysgurl1 on Nov 10, 2004 19:00:47 GMT -6
Gigglyone..... I do love the way you state your opinion, oh Gemini twin of mine..... ~Q~
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Nov 11, 2004 0:01:40 GMT -6
OOOHHH Le's a gemini? I knew I liked her for other reasons than she hates Bush. You go Le!
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 11, 2004 3:09:14 GMT -6
Aww, shucks
{{{Q}}} {{{Scrappy}}} {{{}}}
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Nov 11, 2004 12:49:10 GMT -6
[
[
Since you believe the news is biased in favor of liberals, I would highly recommend that you Google some of this information yourself. Read both sides of the issue from several sources, even including people in other countries, since it is easier for them to be objective, and then let logic tell you what the facts really are. Don't just say, "Well, the media is liberal, so I won't believe anything bad they say about our Republican president," or, "Dubya gave a possible explanation, so I'm just going to leave it at that." It's not that cut and dry, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just being ignorant.
I believe what I actually said was that the widely held belief that the mainstream media was biased liberal was probably one of many things that brought out the right wing conservative voters in droves, which contributed to all those "ban gay marriage" proposals being passed wherever they were on the ballot.
What you have done here is take one offhanded remark in my post, spun it, departed completely from the intent of that post, and somehow managed to interperet how I view the news, how I form my opinions and that those opinions are totally one-sided and uninformed. Do you give any thought to anything I write at all, or just cruise through and look for the odd sentence or remark that you can best use to demonstrate how the dumb old conservative Republican guy just doesn't have a clue?
As far as sifting through every goofball crackpot post on the internet to find the truth (and just how do you determine what is the "real" truth out of all that stuff?) my life will have to get a whole lot duller than it is now for me to waste all that time pouring over some total stranger's hogwash so I could worry and fret over things that are totally beyond my control. Everybody should have a hobby, if that's yours, have fun, not for me though, I'll leave all the conspiricies, voter fraud, and assorted evil doings of the Bush Administration, both real and imagined, to your care.
Political issues can be fun and interesting to kick around, but as far as any meaningful discussion on this list, I refer you to your reply to my question re the response to my previous post ("The rich will just leave...") and then to my first two paragraphs in this post.........Meaningful discussion!!?? Ain't gonna happen here.
Bill K
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 12, 2004 23:42:42 GMT -6
No, my observations of you are based on every post you have written here on the topic, in their entirety. Since you consider Dan Rather to be laughable and obviously don't believe what you watch on ABC News (for example, didn't they cover the 9/11 hearings?), then you obviously don't think they're telling the truth. Personally, I find them to be quite right of center, since there are a lot of facts they've left out of their reporting.
I find it quite humorous how you contradict yourself at every turn. So you're against the banning of gay marriage, yet you commend him on taking a stand on his biggotry. I personally commend people who take a stand AGAINST biggotry.
Why do you support Bush? Do you support his biggotry against the minorities in this country, as well as against the people of Iraq? Do you support his lies? Do you support his covering up that there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? Do you support his exploiting the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11 to win this election, after he did absolutely nothing to prevent it when he could have? Do you support all the tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children dying in Iraq over Bush's quest for power?
Do you support his underhanded tactics to win this election, so he can accomplish more of the same as I've listed above?
No need to answer any of those questions, of course. Based on your all your other posts here, it's obvious to me that you do... That is, unless you are uninformed and actually hold the belief that none of the above is true.
How many facts have I put in front of your face that you've completely ignored? I would say that you're the one doing the cruising. I didn't say you were dumb. You just don't want to acknowledge the facts.
That's already been explained. I rest my case.
Yet another exhibit of you not reading my posts.
Well, I don't have that defeatist attitude. I'm interesting in learning the truth, and in showing the truth to others. You can sit there and feel helpless all you want, but I'm not going to. And they say liberals are lazy.
Then why are you engaging in this discussion?
You have called me low, yet I ignored that remark. You have made a lot of unsubstantiated claims without backing them up with facts, while at the same time you've ignored the facts that myself and others have pointed out. Now you accuse me of taking one offhanded remark and spinning it, yet you've been the one doing that very thing on several occasions with both myself and Asso, and you're blaming me for turning this discussion into something less than meaningful? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by asso on Nov 13, 2004 18:31:18 GMT -6
The fact is that Bill has shown support for this president, in doing so, he has demonstrated that he finds the presidents views to be acceptable, so to try and backpeddle out of it by saying that they are not neccesarily his views, but the views of the party, is asinine. Furthermore, to then accuse Gig of trying to slander him for simply stating the fact that he supports these views is even more ridiculous. Here's the point guys, when he first posted on this board, he made a series of unfounded accusations about the motives of some people that a lot of us around here admire. I took issue with this right away because I recognized this as a demonstration of this persons character. I said to myself, if he will direct this kind of personal attack at people in general, then sooner or later, he will direct this kind of attack at people who post on the board. Sure enough, now, with his latest post, he's directed this kind of unfounded accusation at Gig. He's escalated from making attacks on people we admire, in order to to be antagonistic, to making direct attacks on other posters.
I know, I know, that's quite an accusation to make, but I've been looking around a little and from what I've seen, he hasn't contributed anything substantial to this forum. Everything he does seems to be done with the goal of antagonizing someone. He's done nothing but make a lot of false claims in order to prompt people to argue with him, claims that he has to know are false, this person is obviously an intelligent person. He catagorically dismisses any factual evidence or logical reasoning that you present him with, demonstrating that he's just not concerned with having a real conversation. He's made inflammatory comments, under the guise of being humor, even though he's smart enough to know that nobody around here is going to find demeaning someone to be humorous. He takes things you say out of context, so you'll feel the need to defend yourself, keeping the fight going, even though he can understand english perfectly well and knows what you actually meant. Even in a case of him having a simple misunderstanding with someone, such as in the case with Eirene, he doesn't simply point out in a civil fashion that she misunderstood what he was saying, instead he makes derogatory comments, adding fuel to the fire. It looks to me like he posts in a forum that he knows to be a liberal hang out, and expresses the opposing point of view in an inflammatory way so as to pick a fight.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the behavior of a troll? I know I tend to be a little less tolerant than most people around here, when it comes to bad behavior, and yes, I've overreacted in the past, but I don't think I'm being overzealous here, it looks like everyone that has had an experience with Bill on this forum has had a negative one. I believe it's being disruptive to the sharing of info and ideas here, due to the fact that there are a lot of people shying away from the political threads. Don't get me wrong, I know that we have a policy here, of free speach for all, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but can this behavior really be protected in the name of free speeech? When a person is posting simply to be disruptive and is not really concerned with expressing an opinion? Well, that of course, isn't for me to decide, so I'll leave it in Gig and Jox's capable hands, I just wanted to point this out, because I think we have a problem. Judging by the way people are avoiding the political threads, I think a lot of people agree that there's a problem. But I could be wrong and Bill could just be an arse, heh, and given my lack of popularity around here, they may be avoiding me as much as they are him, who knows, everyone could be sitting around going "If we could just kick Bill and Asso both off the board, that would solve our problems." Heh.
~ Stu Pidasso
|
|
|
Post by asso on Nov 13, 2004 19:39:21 GMT -6
On a side note, love, read my sig, do you see a problem? Heh, it's an interesting choice of a replacement phrase that you used, I can't really think of a way to use "kiss my "arse"" in a sentence so that it could be replaced with "I disagree" and make sense, heh.
~Stu Pidasso
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Nov 13, 2004 22:03:46 GMT -6
And here I thought he might actually believe that stuff. More on the "values" issue... Nevada, who overwhelmingly voted for Bush this year, also overwhelmingly voted to keep prostitution legal, even though gay marriage is illegal there. ABC - Voters overwhelmingly in favor of legalizing prostitutionI'm having a little trouble understanding how conservatives define their "values." I guess as long as they're making money off of it, then it's ok with them.
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Nov 18, 2004 6:12:15 GMT -6
When I was asked to join this group, I didn't know it was home to so much anti-Bush, liberal, or whatever you choose to call it, sentiment. When I discovered this, I stayed away from it for a while, but came to believe that maybe presenting my (mostly opposite) viewpoint might stir up some interest and debate, and be the best way I could contribute to the group. I now see that was a mistake, and maybe I didn't do a very good job of it also.
Anyway, I have suspected for some time now that this group was not a good "fit" for me, but I hung around for a while to at least give it a chance. I am now convinced, after reading these last couple of posts, that I have nothing positive to offer here, so LG, or whoever is in charge, why don't you delete me from the list, and we will all be a lot happier, at least I know I will be.
I do appreciate being asked to join, sorry it didn't work out.
BK
|
|
|
Post by marysgurl1 on Nov 18, 2004 7:16:18 GMT -6
You gotta give the guy props....he knows how to leave gracefully.... I very seldom add to the political forums for different reasons of my own, especially on the issue of gay marriage... (I have been gay for 27 years). However--one day this week--the local radio station was discussing the possibility of Senator Clinton running for President in '08. Now that got my attention!! Anyone else fancy the idea of Sen. Clinton leading our country? The Democrats do not want her to seek a second term as Senator so she can focus on the next Presidential election. She is not leaning that way at this time & plans to seek another term as Senator. I was in college when she was First Lady of Arkansas & I have always admired her work, her focus on education, her spunk, & her ability to always keep her head held high. I voted for Bill twice & I would be tickled pink to see her name on the ballot in 2008! Any thoughts? (I know I kinda changed the flow of things this morning.....is that oky-doky.... )? I think I should've just started a new thread.....
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Nov 18, 2004 10:11:34 GMT -6
It's kind of unfortunate that he is running off. I was enjoying the banter. But you are right he does know how to bow out gracefully.
Just one question......He obviously likes Xena or he wouldn't have been here in the first place. But Xena, because of some it's, uh, themes is definately not a conservative show. So how did an upstanding republican like him get to be a fan in the first place? Just curious............if he's still around I'd like to know.
|
|