Debt Fight Meaning

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Chas,
But please refrain from using any deragotry racial slures. You are above that.

I find the deragotroy slures to be extremely rude and offensive.

Mark

Oh no! Sorry dude, but we talk that type of shit here. If you think PC has any place here, it's time for you to go. That's why this board is here and not on the other site.
Sack up motherfucker!

[hillbilly]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Oh no! Sorry dude, but we talk that type of shit here. If you think PC has any place here, it's time for you to go. That's why this board is here and not on the other site.
Sack up motherfucker!

Did you hear about this one? The park didn't do anything wrong IMO, but a couple feel the need to take it to the next level.

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-ask...200120079.html

[djv8ga]

It's always about what type of sex they're having...not about anything else. Those Queers need to get a life.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Maybe Denver is a different culture.


Mark

You sure got that right!

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

Like the Libertarians used to say, "One Party wants to do it to you in four years, the other wants to take six."

Now you Libs can cuss the Teabaggers all you want, but they're the ONLY ones out there who are making noises to the effect of fundamentally changing the nature of things.

Maybe they're only Memorex, and they want to take eight years. And maybe they're not ready for prime time.

But why not let a little fresh air into the room?

Unless you're pleased with the current status quo.

Chas

they campaign against their own best interests

the teabaggers would be fine if they wanted a balanced budget but that is not the case

they simply want cuts in domestic programs

a very different thing

We need cuts in MILITARY, not even on the table from either party!

Do these knuckleheads say a word about this?

We need revenue because this is what got us into this mess.

Do these Neanderthals say a word about this?

and to make matters worse they would rather cut the baby in half and kill it than compromise on custody

I see absolutely no redeeming value in this scourge to America.

Tell me honest Chas, do you want to cut grandmas check from $1,100 a month to $900 a month and then charge her $300 instead of $150 a months for reduced healthacre services? Here in the richest country on earth?
This is what the teabagbbers want.

[merrylander]

I saw one of them being interviewed on TV last evening - thick as a brick. They represent what, maybe 2% of the population yet they are going to sit there and send us into a second recession with their stupidity.

If Obama is not much of a leader it sure looks like agent orange is no better. Well if interest rates start heading for the moon maybe our money market funds will start paying off again.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Oh no! Sorry dude, but we talk that type of shit here. If you think PC has any place here, it's time for you to go. That's why this board is here and not on the other site.
Sack up motherfucker!

I am not quite sure how to take this. I assume you are being half serious and half joking.

Fair enough. My turn.

Sticks and stones will break my bones...........

And

I know you are but what am I?


Finally, when the brian quits working and intelligence is short, the mouth runith over.

So rasberries at ya.

And now for the serious side.
Whatever............

[flacaltenn]

they campaign against their own best interests

the teabaggers would be fine if they wanted a balanced budget but that is not the case

they simply want cuts in domestic programs

a very different thing

We need cuts in MILITARY, not even on the table from either party!

Do these knuckleheads say a word about this?

We need revenue because this is what got us into this mess.

Do these Neanderthals say a word about this?

and to make matters worse they would rather cut the baby in half and kill it than compromise on custody

I see absolutely no redeeming value in this scourge to America.

Where were YOU noone when the Dems listed $500Bill in cuts to Medicare in order to "pay for" the ObamaCare bill? Where are you GONNA BE when they propose raising the retirement age for SS, and means testing?

Soc Sec needs to be paid for. A difficult proposition because YOU already paid for it once, but the thieves on the HIll STOLE THAT MONEY and skimmed the profit.. The budget CANNOT absorb the liabilities we will see for that fund in the next decade unless we do what EVERYONE said would happen -- and that's to penalize CURRENT workers for the thefts that occurred to PAST workers..

NO MORE COMPROMISE on this shit.. Sorry -- aint' gonna happen. The credit rating is screwed and the American people now know that 1 and 1/2 parties need to go away...

That they aren't serious about the daily management of this country. They THINK it's some kind of elite reward for getting elected to pontificate and pander and lie.. I'm not gonna watch as the DEMs and McCain pow-wow to protect their asses from the coming retribution.. What we need right now is some plea bargains from the guilty on the Hill to prevent US the people from sacking their sorry asses...

[d-ray657]

What is being advocated is converting the money paid into social security into a de-facto tax - the most regressive tax imaginable.

Then they are opposing any increase in taxes on people who get a 7% tax break as soon as they reach the $106K income threshold.

They will not even consider tax changes that affect the highest income recipients, but will make cuts in social security to avoid repaying the debt owed to the funds made up of contributions from even the lowest income earners.

Consider the top marginal income tax rate, then subtract 7% from it to account for the social security discount that is provided to approximately 7% of incomes. (Ninety-three percent of incomes are less than $100K) Essentially, we are asking 93% of the people to protect the tax rate of the top 2%.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

What is being advocated is converting the money paid into social security into a de-facto tax - the most regressive tax imaginable.

Then they are opposing any increase in taxes on people who get a 7% tax break as soon as they reach the $106K income threshold.

They will not even consider tax changes that affect the highest income recipients, but will make cuts in social security to avoid repaying the debt owed to the funds made up of contributions from even the lowest income earners.

Consider the top marginal income tax rate, then subtract 7% from it to account for the social security discount that is provided to approximately 7% of incomes. (Ninety-three percent of incomes are less than $100K) Essentially, we are asking 93% of the people to protect the tax rate of the top 2%.

Regards,

D-Ray

...and how much "revenue" (another silly word change by the left) would that actually bring into the coffers to cover the outrageous spending by both parties. Demagoguing the supposed rich is simply to indulge in class warfare for political gain. Why people think the democrats and Obama is the "people's" party is beyond my comprehension. Obama and the democrats also rely heavily on contributions from corporate entities along with the Unions.