Social Security is not an entitlement. I paid into the Social Security system for 30 years. My husband paid into the Social Security system for 10 years but, because he went to work for the state of Maine for 27 years, he is not entitled to his full Social Security, only a very small amount.
The Social Security system is going bankrupt. Why? Because federal senators and congressmen decided to spend it.
If officials of any bank in America did what government officials have done, they would be in jail for embezzlement.
Instead of our government giving billions of dollars to warring Arab nations and the Palestinians, they should give the money back to Social Security.
The government mandated that all working people pay into Social Security. If people could opt out, they would have put that money into their own IRAs or savings accounts and been a lot richer.
Now, government officials are telling people that Social Security will soon be gone and the public, not them, will suffer the consequences. The ones who spent the money will never be held accountable and they will get a huge retirement check after only four years in office (paid for with tax dollars).
Welfare is an entitlement; MaineCare is an entitlement; rent relief is an entitlement; free college for illegals is an entitlement, and all the many other free programs that give away tax dollars to those who don’t or won’t work.
Mary Jane Newell, Oxford
Report a correction
Save Social Security
. .We've beat this dead horse enough , huh ? Save social security from the tea party :) More to come . . ..surely /s, Dr. Dosh and ohana , Hawai'i http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/ 11.09.21
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My generation, and future generations would just like to say....
Thanks.
Thanks for electing people who thought it was a good idea to spend your Social Security on other crap.
Thanks for letting them get away with it.
Thanks for letting government spend way above it's budget.
Thanks for now look at the half empty kitty, and in an effort to distance yourself from others who have their hands out looking for government salvation, make sure to differentiate that this isn't an entitlement.
And Thanks for saddling us with having to pay to get out of this mess.
Isn't it neat how the American dream went from a nuclear family living in a nice home to just having a job.
Having a job is the new American dream.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You're welcome.
From the other end of the telescope, let me thank you.
Thanks for electing people who thought it was a good idea, in order to buy votes, to cut the tax that supports Social Security, hastening the day of its demise.
For all the other items you listed, thanks for electing people all too willing to perpetuate the myths surrounding this gigantic Ponzi scheme.
But you're wrong, Jason. The new American dream is for someone else to have a job, paying hefty taxes to support your indolence and ignorance.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Save Social Security
. .Why are ppl so worried about this issue ? Even http://www.aarp.org will tell you that social security is about the - only - solvent U S federal program right now . Privatize social security ? No , t y v m :) /s, Dr. Dosh , Hawai'i
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Take the Money out of Washington
Dear Mary,
You identify lots of valid points. In my opinion, our Federal Government has little to no respect for the rank and file tax payer. Our hard labor (tax revenues) are thrown around with impunity. Take for example the recent “Private Public Partnership” with Solyndra in Fremont California - $500 Million of taxpayer’s dollars gone up in smoke.
General William Shelton, head of Air Force Space Command, was pressured to change prepared congressional testimony in to favor a large Democratic donor. This is yet another example of not putting the tax payer’s interest over political favors.
Greed is part of the human condition, and with a large concentration of easy money (taken from the labor of others) in Washington, this behavior is no surprise to me. While we cannot take greed out the being human, we can take the money out of Washington and keep in the taxpayer’s pockets where it truly belongs.
Regards,
Mark Gravel
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Solyndra?
Do you mean the Solyndra loan the Bush admin began pushing in 2007?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yeah, that one. Bush may have
Yeah, that one. Bush may have pushed it, but oBAMa turned into a scandal.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Lil, That is certainly a one
Lil,
That is certainly a one dimensional response. Perhaps we should step back and view this vertically instead of horizontally along party lines. Clearly the taxpayers lost. A more fundamental question would be to ask whether Government should be spending taxpayer’s money in that manner. For me, answer is a resounding NO.
Mark
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.CHeck the records, the loans
CHeck the records, the loans came during the OBAMA administration, not during the BUsh years...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Predictable as sunrise.
As soon as you criticize the One's administration even indirectly, the apologists crawl out from under their rocks to deliver their standard telepromptery: Oh, yeah? Halliburton, Cheney, yellow cake, Aboo Grub, ... Get some new material, guys. Those oldies are way out of date.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Frosty, you left out weapons
Frosty, you left out weapons of mass destruction.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mike, There is a reason why
Mike,
There is a reason why it is called “blind faith”. I’ll say no more.
Mark
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.In the land of the blind, the
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed Jack is King.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.merely pointing out how
merely pointing out how two-face you are.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Your phony outrage is
Your phony outrage is laughable. Where was it when Halliburton receive hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in no bid contracts, and squandered alot of it. It makes the Solyndra pales in comparison, although I think Solyndra should be investigated, which it is by the Obama administration. Where was the bush administration when Halliburton was screwing us out of BILLIONS?
Everyone who works for the administration has their prepared testimony vetted by the administration. This has been done for decades. General Shelton had two choices, either he could continue to work for the administration in his current capacity, or resign from the Air Force Space Command, be reassigned and testify however he wanted. Instead he went crying to republicans who made everything public. What a dishonorable man, an embarrasement to his country, which he swore to serve with dignity.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh Danny boy
In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton-Brown & Root lost the compebreastion to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton-Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale compebreastive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton-Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.
That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section breastled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services - food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services - transportation, electrical, hazardous materials Debt Collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No bid contracts to
No bid contracts to Halliburton just happned to have started under Slick Willy. That's a fact.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Haha...you jumped right into
Haha...you jumped right into the trap.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Let’s seek out the forest through the trees.
Dan,
We mainly comment on current events. I was not posting when Halliburton was current news. If I were, I would not have defended Halliburton. Let’s keep our discussions on current events instead of extrapolating to past history.
So ask yourself, what would you do if your employer asked you to do something unethical? You too have the choice to do it or resign; moreover, you have a duty to society to shed light on this unethical behavior, especially if the agency you work for suppose represent the public. Unethical behavior must always be challenged. On that note, General Shelton made the correct choice – he is a true patriot for his actions. He did, in fact, serve the public with dignity.
So tell me, what would you do?
In closing, let me leave you with this though. Given that Government is comprised of humans, and as such, subject to all human vices, are fallible. Blind faith in any political party, which is comprised of humans, is not rational.
Let’s seek out the forest through the trees.
Regards,
Mark Gravel
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.As President of the United
As President of the United States, Prsident Obama is General Shelton's commanding officer. The chain of command dictates that he obeys the orders of his commanding officer. He has two choices, testify the way ordered or resign and testify as a retired general. What he did was testify the way ordered then cowardly went behind the scenes and disobeyed his orders. If a subordinate of General Shelton had done the same thing, he would be court martialed, but since General Shelton is a republican stoolie, he'll get away with it. Again not a shining example of our current military.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You left out at least one choice.
Like everyone else in the US military, the general had to state this oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
If he believes his orders are un-Constitutional (unlawful), it is his sworn duty to testify to that belief. The shameful and cowardly act is to keep his mouth shut and do what he's told. It's no big surprise that certain commenters here would overlook the Constitution, what with it being a living-breathing document that can mean anything or nothing.
But, go home, Dan, and work on your tan.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.he testified according to
he testified according to what was vetted, it was afterward that he complained to the republicans that he was forced to. He wasn't. He could have testified what he perceived as the truth, AFTER resigning. He didn't, he's a coward!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Let’s not be like a sheet of paper
You are missing a key adjective: ..obey “lawful” orders.
The General has an obligation to disobey what he considers an unlawful order. Perhaps there should be a trial to see if congress’s request was unlawful? Let’s turn on the lights. Let’s search for the truth. Let’s not be like a sheet of paper – politically one dimensional.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.But the general testified.
But the general testified. So was he following lawful orders when he testified or when he cowardly complained about it to the republicans? There was only one honorable way to go about this, he didn't choose it. But anyway, it's a nice day, too nice to spend it here, so we'll talk later.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nice point list.
David Gagnon forgot one interesting fact. When FDR and the Democrats set up SS back in the 30s, they chose a minimum age to receive benefits - 65, I think, or close to it. Whatever, it was higher than the life expectancy at that time! That is, they hoped and expected not to have to pay out a dime. Oops! Then we ungrateful workers started living longer. How unpatriotic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Now, government officials
"Now, government officials are telling people that Social Security will soon be gone and the public, not them, will suffer the consequenses.
That's right, Mary Jane. And, oBAMa's answer to his Jobs ACT bill? Further lower the pay check tax deduction on what people pay into Social Security. He's going to create jobs and stimulate the economy by having current workers paying less into the Social Security coffers.That's like having workers pick their own pockets. How sick is that?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Good observation
Mike,
Good observation, yet another reason to keep money out of Washington and in the tax payer’s pocket.
Regards,
Mark Gravel
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hey Pirate
I would be willing to donate the thousands of dollars i've paid in if the government stops taking. I would like to invest it privately and appreciate a better return. The govt. Can't do that for obvious reasons.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I know what you're saying,
I know what you're saying, Joe, but I wouldn't give those bastards a nickel they didn't have coming to them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh Danny boy,
When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democrat
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democrat Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Now 7.65% on the first
Now 7.65%
on the first $106,000
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So David....
When can we expect the Republicans to reverse these 'outrages?'
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ron, As long as you look to
Ron,
As long as you look to Washington for the solution, whether your savior are Democrats, Republicans, or , you’ll have no solution for they are the problem.
Regards, Mark Gravel
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mark;
How simplistic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ron, Sometimes the truth is
Ron,
Sometimes the truth is simple.
Mark
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.sources?
What, not even one source for your assertions?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Here's a source.
Would you trust the SSA? There's lots of interesting data there. For example, Social Security and Medicare Tax Rates, where you can trace the hikes from 1% up to the current gouging. More interesting is Contribution and Benefit Base, where to can see the changes to the earnings cap. This was changed much more frequently than the rate so our invertebrate politicians could say they didn't raise the SS tax.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Fact is fact, Lilly. What's
Fact is fact, Lilly. What's he supposed to do, quote
Funk & Wagnel?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.lol
You're showing your age pirate... that was my grams expression. "Go look that up in your Funk & Wagner"
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Haha...didn't realize the
Haha...didn't realize the expression was that dated.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That argument only works if
That argument only works if he is making false assertions... if you believe that then refute the points he has made. This a blog, not a term paper.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.false assertions
Well then, here's a couple of false assertions: "Social Security (FICA) Program" implies SS and FICA are one and the same. Uh, no. SS is part of FICA, but not the whole thing. Or how 'bout this one: "Now 7.65% on the first $90,000". Uh, wrong again. Currently 4.2% on the first $106,800, http://goo.gl/NJt2r (WARNING! Link to actual FACT!)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.see!
That's the right way to do things. Proud of ya.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Like I've told you people
Like I've told you people before, get off your lazy behind and prove me wrong. I set out the facts, you need to show me I'm wrong.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bottom line...
My paycheck said, right on it in black and white (or what ever color they were using on my check) that this amount of money is for MY Social Security. It said that for 53 years. If that money is no longer there, it has been stolen. Those who stole it need to either put it back or go to jail, like any other thief. I don't want anything special. Just the money taken out of MY paycheck for 53 years.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Amen to that, Brother.
Amen to that, Brother.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It hasn't been stolened, but
It hasn't been stolened, but invested, in US backed securities.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Invested = spent
Those investments total to trillions towards the social security trust fund. In other words, a mountain of IOU's to the citizens savings account also knoiwn as social security. The I.O.U.'s are an obligation to the U.S. Govt. and are currently accounted for in the national deficit.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When did using Social
When did using Social Security funds to turn it into a welfare program (SSI) for slackers, fakers, addicts and drunks become "US backed securities"?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.SSI has NOTHING to do with
SSI has NOTHING to do with the Social Security Trust Fund!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My daughter...
...who is now 50 years old and still living at home, was born without a functioning thyroid. I won't go into detail but you could look up, if you're at all interested, to see how that manifests itself. You will find that's not unusual in an adult, but it was the first time, ever, it was diagnosed in a newborn infant. I also will not go into detail about what we then had to go through as parents. She receives Social Security disability and for several years, SSI. You can choose to believe me or not, but she is not a slacker, she is not a faker, she is not an addict and she is not a drunk. We used her SSI to teach her about a very important abstract - money. Another abstract she had trouble with was telling time. I would be interested, very interested, to know how you characterize her.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Show me.
Do something positive for a change.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.correcting the inaccuracies
correcting the inaccuracies of you and your brethren is a full time job.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And we aim to keep it that
And we aim to keep it that way, T...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.more...
"3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible"
"There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII." http://goo.gl/dRS39
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.even more?
"That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income."
"The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983." http://goo.gl/dRS39
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.and my favorite...
"Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!"
"Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system." http://goo.gl/dRS39
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.okay
Well then I say social security is about to triple everybody's benefits and allow retirement at 35. Prove me wrong.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why, FOX News, of course, so
Why, FOX News, of course, so it must be the truth.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.you are so random
Where Dan wishes there was smoke he will go start a fire.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.which is inaccurate?
What part of his outline on S.S. is inaccurate? Most of that stuff is common knowledge... but god forbid you miss an opportunity to talk down to or slander someone
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's all accurate, true and
It's all accurate, true and mostly common knowledge, but we're not dealing with common people here, Joe.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Excellent comeback
Mr. Gagnon. Too bad sooooo many "sheeple" live on a street named Denial !!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You've already seen, Ms
You've already seen, Ms Newell, that republicans are against Social Security, favoring last year to giving huge tax cuts to rich people, while denying a modest payment to SS recipients, many of whom are live below the poverty level. Cong. Rand want to gut Medicare, while continuing to give huge tax cuts for the wealthy. If anyone over the age of forty would just realize this, republicans would never win another election. Unfortunately, too many sheep watch FOX News instead of using logic.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And you call me the cliche
And you call me the cliche king?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Apparenly you don't know what
Apparenly you don't know what a cliche is, since there not one in that post
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Republicans are against
Republicans are against Social Security...it's laughable.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.it would be if it wasn't
it would be if it wasn't true, but it is as right as the rain
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.He's not a man, he'S a machine.
A little Rocky quote. Because despite that this info was just laid and Dan denied none if it he still said his pre-recorded response. Just got a flash, Dan as Kieth Olberman for halloween.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.