What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
As you drone on with your defense of Obama, nobody as yet has ever successfully explained Obama's visions of a security force, and most people don't even try, they just ignore it. Thats the problem, Obama's history and associations, and his true beliefs have all been ignored.

Perhaps you should ask Obama about it.

Cycloptichorn

No use. I would not expect a straight or honest answer. The man is a mystery, no correlation between explanations and actions, so we are left with interpreting the man from his actions.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Cyclo- Lying is perfectly honourable if it is in the national interest.

Not proven to have occurred, but even if it was, thats infinitely better than lying for personal interest.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Not proven to have occurred, but even if it was, thats infinitely better than lying for personal interest.

I thought it was a socialist trait to put the common good before the individual good?

1 Reply

@okie,

No. Do the math yourself to find the correct answer. My response to you are the facts about social security and Medicare. "Large sums" is very subjective based on the returns. That's why I accused you of not knowing what you are talking about. I've been on social security (I also collect max benefits, but I started my benefits at age 63) and medicare for over nine years, and my benefits already far exceed what I paid into it. That'll be true for you too whether you want to admit that or not.

Until you do the math, you won't know what you are talking about.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
As you drone on with your defense of Obama, nobody as yet has ever successfully explained Obama's visions of a security force, and most people don't even try, they just ignore it. Thats the problem, Obama's history and associations, and his true beliefs have all been ignored.

Perhaps you should ask Obama about it.

Cycloptichorn

No use. I would not expect a straight or honest answer. The man is a mystery, no correlation between explanations and actions, so we are left with interpreting the man from his actions.

What actions, specifically, do you think that he has taken, for which there are no explanations?

I think a better translation of your answer would be: I wouldn't believe anything he says, b/c I don't want to believe anything he says. No explanation would work for you. Am I right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

How can you not believe in the worst? All your posts go way beyond common sense, reality, and lack evidence. Your words are just jerking off without much facts to them.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Pro Patria, you old fox. Some Roman came up with the term. See also the inscription of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, or read Homer. All of them lived somewhat before Lenin, or even the Webbs Smile

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

(I also collect max benefits, but I started my benefits at age 63) and medicare for over nine years, and my benefits already far exceed what I paid into it.

Are you presenting that as an argument for Welfare ci. Will everybody's benefits far exceed what they paid in?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think Cicerone is generalizing a bit too far, perhaps based on his own situation. Much depends on the assumption one makes regarding how many years a person worked and at what salary - to determine the amount "contributed" (in fact it is a tax paid in equal sums by the employer and employee, the total amounting up to about $12,000/year). The maximum benefit is about $27.5 thousand/year.

I draw the maximum benefit and, because I am still employed, continue to pay the tax into the system (plus another $3.5 thousand tax for medicare). The benefits themselves (or 85% of them) are considered taxable income so about 35% of them go back to the government in income taxes. I have paid taxes into the system for the whole of my working life, and would have to live for about 40 years after I retire in order to just break even.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

And, if you DON'T live for 40 years after you retire, whatever you don't collect in benefits remains in the US treasury as general funds for Congress to spend on whatever. You aren't allowed to bequeath it to your wife or kids or grandkids as you can a private savings account. If you get hit by a bus the day you retire, the government gets it all.

There is also nothing in the Constitution or general law that would prevent Congress from changing, suspending, or stopping your benefits at any time they chose and there is absolutely nothing you could do about it. It would be political suicide of course, at least now, but they could do it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Hence your respective political affilations I presume.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I just translate things like that into Latin. It makes them sound more. . .noble.--Father Francis John Patrick Mulcahy

That's true. My school motto was "Sicut Cervus" which we were told meant " It's a pisser".

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think Cicerone is generalizing a bit too far, perhaps based on his own situation. Much depends on the assumption one makes regarding how many years a person worked and at what salary - to determine the amount "contributed" (in fact it is a tax paid in equal sums by the employer and employee, the total amounting up to about $12,000/year). The maximum benefit is about $27.5 thousand/year.

I draw the maximum benefit and, because I am still employed, continue to pay the tax into the system (plus another $3.5 thousand tax for medicare). The benefits themselves (or 85% of them) are considered taxable income so about 35% of them go back to the government in income taxes. I have paid taxes into the system for the whole of my working life, and would have to live for about 40 years after I retire in order to just break even.

This is akin to trying to break even on insurance premiums; it's not the point.

Amazing to me how 'me-centered' so many of you Republicans are... everything in terms of how you're not gettin' yours, because of the evil government.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That's amazing Cyclo. How you come to that conclusion after reading ci's and George's posts baffles me.

ci. is A2K's most me meman.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Not fair Spendi. Both Cyclo and CI are among A2Ks most generous and benevolent and selfless members. So long as they can be that with somebody else's money which is opinion based on their previous statements.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Not fair Spendi. Both Cyclo and CI are among A2Ks most generous and benevolent members. So long as they can be that with somebody else's money, an opinion based on their previous statements.

Just like you are, except for the Defense industry and other Republican goals. The only difference being that I am honest about it, while you and others are not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You would need to be more specific to assess any kind of reasonable correlation. Meanwhile, Republicans at least usually know the difference between Social Security and insurance.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You would need to be more specific to assess any kind of reasonable correlation. Meanwhile, Republicans at least usually know the difference between Social Security and insurance.

There isn't much difference between SS and insurance. You've just described one of the major failings of the modern Republican party: a fundamental misunderstanding of how SS works. You bunch seem to think it's a retirement account, when in truth, it is an insurance policy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Meanwhile, Republicans at least usually know the difference between Social Security and insurance.

Like in old age, survivors, and disability insurance?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Social security was never intended to be any of those things. It was intended to provide the elderly with a very small pension so that they would not be destitute, but ALL elderly, not just those who 'needed it' would receive it. That is what most differentiates it from any form of insurance.

Over the years Congress has ordered social security to also provide some old age and survivor benefits, something the system was never originally designed to provide, and this has further strained the system so that it will become unviable much sooner than it otherwise would. Go into any U.S. Social Security office and you'll see far more young people there than the elderly.

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know