America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by bobsnook. 55 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Syria ?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
bs_kwaj Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 4:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214
I don't normally get involved in political discussions since I'm not that well read on the subjects, but I am curious if there is any group in Syria that would be considered the 'good guys' in the old fashioned American sense of the phrase?

Is it the poor bastards getting gassed?

Or the poor bastards getting shot in the back of the head?

Think

Burner02 Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 6:23 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Don't think anyone really knows for sure.
dpnewell Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 7:04 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Dear Leader and his advisors seem to think that Al Qaeda are the good guys.
Gene363 Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 7:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
This about sums it up: http://31.media.tumblr.com/90cf63623d4f6d10157eabc1b0dcea95/tumblr_mso7k5Mlyk1rhnukoo1_1280.jpg
wheelrite Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 7:57 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
they should all kill each other,,,
HockeyDad Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
wheelrite wrote:
they should all kill each other,,,


I know...right. Its working so far andwe want to meddle.
wheelrite Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 8:13 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
HockeyDad wrote:
I know...right. Its working so far andwe want to meddle.


We ?
No Barry and the French,,,,
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 8:13 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
Gotta protect Dumbo the Dog eater.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 9:15 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
With the US being the biggest spender on its millitary, by a factor of ten for any nation on the globe, can you think of anything worse for us than to not have a war?

And if the Russans back Syria, so much the better. After all, what business are we in?

Stopping the bad guys. That's us, right?
Mathen Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 9:27 PM EST
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
Well if you want to let Pesky things like facts get in the way, actually we spend about four times as much on Defense as the next highest spender, the Chinese. Not ten times.

Though we do have almost 40% of all the defense spending in the world, the Army recently announced it is going to cut its budget 25%. Looking at spending graphs of defense budgets in the last century, we're actually following a wholy consistent and predictable pattern of build up and draw down reflected in every period of conflict and post conflict since world war 2
frankj1 Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 10:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,242
Mathen wrote:
Well if you want to let Pesky things like facts get in the way, actually we spend about four times as much on Defense as the next highest spender, the Chinese. Not ten times.

Though we do have almost 40% of all the defense spending in the world, the Army recently announced it is going to cut its budget 25%. Looking at spending graphs of defense budgets in the last century, we're actually following a wholy consistent and predictable pattern of build up and draw down reflected in every period of conflict and post conflict since world war 2

I am not the brightest bulb here, but exactly who is China worried about?
rfenst Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 11:26 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
Mathen wrote:
Well if you want to let Pesky things like facts get in the way, actually we spend about four times as much on Defense as the next highest spender, the Chinese. Not ten times.

Though we do have almost 40% of all the defense spending in the world, the Army recently announced it is going to cut its budget 25%. Looking at spending graphs of defense budgets in the last century, we're actually following a wholy consistent and predictable pattern of build up and draw down reflected in every period of conflict and post conflict since world war 2


So...?
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Sep 6 2013, 11:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,403
frankj1 wrote:
I am not the brightest bulb here, but exactly who is China worried about?


Who are we TRULY worried about? Not Russia or us.
We fear violent extremist groups and a few unpredictable, small to medium size countries, which is all the same as fearing unpredictability IMO.
Mathen Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 7:45 AM EST
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
The "so" is that I get sick of wildly exaggerated claims about the defense budget.

Our defense spending is 4.4% of GDP which is exactly on par with Russia (third largest spender). Combine the defense budgets of Russia and China--two sovereign states that are soft belligerents-- and we're outpacing them in spending by a bit more than double.

There are a lot of things that contribute to our massive spending. Some of which are all the scary industrial military complex perpetual war machine stuff that the tin foil hat club likes to point at. It's there, I'm not going to pretend its not. But there are a lot of things that people don't consider. To whit: our professional and *all volunteer* military needs to be paid a living wage if you want to keep them around. Though you will never hear me say that SGT Bagodonuts is making too much money for standing in harms way, it is indisputable that he's getting paid quite a bit more than his peers in just about every military on earth. Human capital alone is a huge recurring cost. Which is why every time there is a budget cut, there is a RIF.

Also, we develop and field bleeding edge technology that is deployed quickly. Take our frequency hopping radios, for example. In order to communicate with our allies, we have to GIVE them away. Give. Allies. Expensive. So that they are able to participate in coalitions. To some extent, were subsidizing just about everyone of our allies. If you have a problem giving radios to Aussies I would ask is it a fiscal or a moral objection?

When troops started getting killed by IEDs we developed the MRAP in an effort to improve survivability. Did you know those were flown individually into theatre as they came off the assembly line rather than waiting for a few dozen and putting them on a ship? A quick cost analysis shows we could have spent a fraction of the money if we had done the latter, but instead we elected to protect the force at greater expense. (The motivations for which can be argued about ad nauseum)

Do I personally believe we could reduce our defense budget? Oh hell yes. I've been in the defense business as a soldier and a civilian *almost* my entire life. I believe truly we are inefficient and wasteful-- quite frankly, very poor custodians-- of tax payer dollars. The Federal Acquisition Regulation is, in my mind, the best example possible of the old cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Want to maintain a real posture that keeps other nation states from poking at us while cutting our spending in half? Start with the FAR. Then tackle the (internal) political structure of both the military and the civilian work force. Then you need to incentivize towards cost avoidance vice spend everything. Finally, you need to get past congressional interference when realizing efficiencies... Which could be the topic of an entire book and probably should be.



Brewha Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 11:07 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Mathen wrote:
The "so" is that I get sick of wildly exaggerated claims about the defense budget.

Our defense spending is 4.4% of GDP which is exactly on par with Russia (third largest spender). Combine the defense budgets of Russia and China--two sovereign states that are soft belligerents-- and we're outpacing them in spending by a bit more than double.

There are a lot of things that contribute to our massive spending. Some of which are all the scary industrial military complex perpetual war machine stuff that the tin foil hat club likes to point at. It's there, I'm not going to pretend its not. But there are a lot of things that people don't consider. To whit: our professional and *all volunteer* military needs to be paid a living wage if you want to keep them around. Though you will never hear me say that SGT Bagodonuts is making too much money for standing in harms way, it is indisputable that he's getting paid quite a bit more than his peers in just about every military on earth. Human capital alone is a huge recurring cost. Which is why every time there is a budget cut, there is a RIF.

Also, we develop and field bleeding edge technology that is deployed quickly. Take our frequency hopping radios, for example. In order to communicate with our allies, we have to GIVE them away. Give. Allies. Expensive. So that they are able to participate in coalitions. To some extent, were subsidizing just about everyone of our allies. If you have a problem giving radios to Aussies I would ask is it a fiscal or a moral objection?

When troops started getting killed by IEDs we developed the MRAP in an effort to improve survivability. Did you know those were flown individually into theatre as they came off the assembly line rather than waiting for a few dozen and putting them on a ship? A quick cost analysis shows we could have spent a fraction of the money if we had done the latter, but instead we elected to protect the force at greater expense. (The motivations for which can be argued about ad nauseum)

Do I personally believe we could reduce our defense budget? Oh hell yes. I've been in the defense business as a soldier and a civilian *almost* my entire life. I believe truly we are inefficient and wasteful-- quite frankly, very poor custodians-- of tax payer dollars. The Federal Acquisition Regulation is, in my mind, the best example possible of the old cliche about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Want to maintain a real posture that keeps other nation states from poking at us while cutting our spending in half? Start with the FAR. Then tackle the (internal) political structure of both the military and the civilian work force. Then you need to incentivize towards cost avoidance vice spend everything. Finally, you need to get past congressional interference when realizing efficiencies... Which could be the topic of an entire book and probably should be.






So are you blowing past the point or going off on a tangent?
Brewha Offline
#16 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
rfenst wrote:
Who are we TRULY worried about? Not Russia or us.
We fear violent extremist groups and a few unpredictable, small to medium size countries, which is all the same as fearing unpredictability IMO.

Yet our actions abroad seem to draw extremist hatred, if not create it in the first place.


I'm not a historian, but has there been a period during my life when the US was not in some kind of war? Sure, I know Korea was a 'police action', but it pretty much looked like a war to me.
bloody spaniard Offline
#17 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 11:35 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Sadly not, Brew. Problem is, mutilating and maiming our kids, many of whom have no real skills, is a major boon for small sectors of our economy. We get involved in selective nation rescue and recovery projects while the Europeans, Chinese, Saudis and gang laugh at our naivete and corporate whore- greed and STILL pick up many of the contract bids put out by the "grateful" host countries. Now they're trying to confuse us with the great switcheroo by re-directing our make believe ire at nuclear Iran from al-Assad's inconsequential Syria. What ever happened to North Korea? I guess we're saving that one in our cupboard for presidential debate emergencies.

I was a big proponent of the Vietnam war when I was a kid. My betters told me about the Asian domino theory and how much better a democracy would be for those poor brown people- a better standard of living for them and new markets for us. Well, that worked out really GREAT for me and the American taxpayer, didn't it?

In the future, I predict a very small work force supporting pensioners, disability recipients, and Third World folks looking for a new start.
Great recipe for success, don't you think?
snowwolf777 Offline
#18 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
bloody spaniard wrote:
In the future, I predict a very small work force supporting pensioners, disability recipients, and Third World folks looking for a new start.


VERY near future. Percentage of "get out of bed every morning and go to work" vs. those who watch Povich/Ellen and wait for the mailbox to clunk with their government goodies each afternoon is nearly over-centered. When it happens, we can watch the Greece/France style riots from the sh*theads who aren't getting enough free stuff and they're pissed.

We're already well on our way, with the Occupy idiots and the vapor heads who protest they want doctor wages to put fries in a paper sack.d'oh!
bloody spaniard Offline
#19 Posted: Sat, Sep 7 2013, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
snowwolf777 wrote:
VERY near future. Percentage of "get out of bed every morning and go to work" vs. those who watch Povich/Ellen and wait for the mailbox to clunk with their government goodies each afternoon is nearly over-centered. When it happens, we can watch the Greece/France style riots from the sh*theads who aren't getting enough free stuff and they're pissed.
We're already well on our way, with the Occupy idiots and the vapor heads who protest they want doctor wages to put fries in a paper sack.d'oh!


And the sad part is that rightfully or wrongfully they ALL think they're ENTITLED to that "free" money whether it's early retirement (prior to age 62), mental/sacroiliac disabilities which are difficult to disprove, or substinance welfare in general.
The Greeks and French like most of Europe had GENERATIONS of deadbeats who inherited positions/pensions/government contracts. When they had that rescinded & had at least 50% taken away due to austerity measures, they picked up bricks. That's not going to help them this time however. The treasury has NOTHING and many are losing generations of family property which were previously tax free.

10-9-8-7-6-5... waiting for American squawking chickens to return to coops after free ranging all this time.ram27bat
Brewha Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2013, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
bloody spaniard wrote:
Sadly not, Brew. Problem is, mutilating and maiming our kids, many of whom have no real skills, is a major boon for small sectors of our economy. We get involved in selective nation rescue and recovery projects while the Europeans, Chinese, Saudis and gang laugh at our naivete and corporate whore- greed and STILL pick up many of the contract bids put out by the "grateful" host countries. Now they're trying to confuse us with the great switcheroo by re-directing our make believe ire at nuclear Iran from al-Assad's inconsequential Syria. What ever happened to North Korea? I guess we're saving that one in our cupboard for presidential debate emergencies.

I was a big proponent of the Vietnam war when I was a kid. My betters told me about the Asian domino theory and how much better a democracy would be for those poor brown people- a better standard of living for them and new markets for us. Well, that worked out really GREAT for me and the American taxpayer, didn't it?

In the future, I predict a very small work force supporting pensioners, disability recipients, and Third World folks looking for a new start.
Great recipe for success, don't you think?

Yeah, if you want to find the real "evil wrong doers" (thanks George) all you have to do is follow the money.


So should we deregulate the banking industry to stimulate growth?Think
8trackdisco Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2013, 1:50 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,100
It's like a war between the Cowboys and the Vikings. The longer and bloodier the battle, the better.

Obama wants to spend money we don't have to arm rebels and Al Qeida militants.

Funding Al-Qeida, while spying on law abiding Americans. Your tax dollars at work. Is this how you want your money spent?

I hope he does the next "right thing". Giving Al-Qeida food stamps, Medicaid benefits, drivers licenses, and a pathway to citizenship. The public schools also should be forced (at taxpayer expense) to teach Arabic in our schools, to celebrate diversity.

After all, they are just looking for a better life.
Brewha Offline
#22 Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2013, 8:58 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
I do believe that Obama does the bidding of those whom are in charge.

As to the rest, hate is a blinding thing. Is it not?
Brewha Offline
#23 Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2013, 9:58 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
bloody spaniard wrote:
And the sad part is that rightfully or wrongfully they ALL think they're ENTITLED to that "free" money whether it's early retirement (prior to age 62), mental/sacroiliac disabilities which are difficult to disprove, or substinance welfare in general.
The Greeks and French like most of Europe had GENERATIONS of deadbeats who inherited positions/pensions/government contracts. When they had that rescinded & had at least 50% taken away due to austerity measures, they picked up bricks. That's not going to help them this time however. The treasury has NOTHING and many are losing generations of family property which were previously tax free.

10-9-8-7-6-5... waiting for American squawking chickens to return to coops after free ranging all this time.ram27bat


And what of US corporate welfare? Or legal Wall Street theft?

You carp about a few of the poor swindling pennies, while the real crimes are protected by law.
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted: Sun, Sep 8 2013, 10:07 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
stupid carp... always messing up a good fishing trip Mad
Lou Sanis Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:22 AM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
Corporations and business are what make this country great. The poor and unwashed are like an anchor. And the able who quit early and live on welfare or fleece the tax payers are worse yet.

But none of this has anything to do with the cost of head cheese in Syria.
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:25 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Send the poor and unwashed to Syria.

(Tied that one up with a bow on it !)
Lou Sanis Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:34 AM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
I'm with you to an extent. There are others that need to go too. People who still can work, yet don't, need to go to. I read the disability thread and it seems like the prevailing thought is if you can leverage the system to benefit the individual then to he'll with the good of the country or the manny. Also those that retire young. That is simply quitting and allowing this country to fail. Send them all.
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:45 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Lou Sanis wrote:
I read the disability thread and it seems like the prevailing thought is if you can leverage the system to benefit the individual then to he'll with the good of the country or the manny.


That is what is now known as "The American Way"



Lou Sanis wrote:


Also those that retire young. That is simply quitting and allowing this country to fail. Send them all.


Who is John Galt?
Lou Sanis Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:50 AM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
I have no **** clue who John Galt is. Did he quit on his country too?
Gene363 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 8:50 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
Lou Sanis wrote:
I'm with you to an extent. There are others that need to go too. People who still can work, yet don't, need to go to. I read the disability thread and it seems like the prevailing thought is if you can leverage the system to benefit the individual then to he'll with the good of the country or the manny. Also those that retire young. That is simply quitting and allowing this country to fail. Send them all.


I shorted my family, my life, and my health working. I worked my ass off, sacrificed, paid cash when I could and did my best to avoid the slavery of debt. I put in my time working as a corporate 'slave', as an independent businessman and always a slave to taxes. I retired early to enjoy life a little and give something back to the my family. If you hate that, tough. OTOH, if you are just jealous, hate on, it makes my retirement even sweeter. Beer fog
Lou Sanis Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 9:02 AM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
I think it is admirable when people are still able to contribute towards the greater good but choose not to.
bloody spaniard Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 9:12 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
[quote=Lou Sanis]I'm with you to an extent. There are others that need to go too. People who still can work, yet don't, need to go to. I read the disability thread and it seems like the prevailing thought is if you can leverage the system to benefit the individual then to he'll with the good of the country or the manny. Also those that retire young. That is simply quitting and allowing this country to fail. Send them all.[/quote]
Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause
Uncle Sugar's free ride is over 'cause he's broke and paying with fake credit.

Same thing applies to retired, golfing folks who have adequate reserves and still suck at Uncle Sam's wrinkled teats with concave cheeks for all its worth. Benefits should be more difficult to get AND should be prorated based on need. None of this pea/shell hiding of assets among family so that you can qualify either. If you're able and don't like working get your fat lazy ass the eff out. These will be among the first animals to panic and throw rocks when the checks stop as they have in other parts of the world.

Brew, everyone knows the stranglehold that the Goldman Sachs of the world have on this country.
Even the architect of the "trickle down" theory, David Stockman, realized it didn't really work. It merely empowered the loyal-less, parasitic corporate culture. As proud Reaganites we BOTH cried.
Gene363 Offline
#33 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 10:02 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
bloody spaniard wrote:
[quote=Lou Sanis]I'm with you to an extent. There are others that need to go too. People who still can work, yet don't, need to go to. I read the disability thread and it seems like the prevailing thought is if you can leverage the system to benefit the individual then to he'll with the good of the country or the manny. Also those that retire young. That is simply quitting and allowing this country to fail. Send them all.[/quote]
Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause Applause
Uncle Sugar's free ride is over 'cause he's broke and paying with fake credit.

Same thing applies to retired, golfing folks who have adequate reserves and still suck at Uncle Sam's wrinkled teats with concave cheeks for all its worth. Benefits should be more difficult to get AND should be prorated based on need. None of this pea/shell hiding of assets among family so that you can qualify either. If you're able and don't like working get your fat lazy ass the eff out. These will be among the first animals to panic and throw rocks when the checks stop as they have in other parts of the world.

Brew, everyone knows the stranglehold that the Goldman Sachs of the world have on this country.
Even the architect of the "trickle down" theory, David Stockman, realized it didn't really work. It merely empowered the loyal-less, parasitic corporate culture. As proud Reaganites we BOTH cried.




What are "adequate reserves" and who is going to decide that? Means testing is already built into Social Security and if you earn above $113k, they stop taking SS. d'oh!

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/means-testing-social-security

The idea of rewarding success by taking it and giving it to others is really foreign to me. Congress stole the money from SS and now they are talking about going after and 'protecting' 401k funds, heaven help us! The French had it right during the Reign of Terror; we need to start Guillotine Manufacturing Ltd, in a small non state district.

Meanwhile, I didn't have a choice about participating in Social Security. I'm getting my money back a little at a time, assuming I live long enough. I started paying when I was 15 years old.


Goldman Sachs at least shares a little with some of us who hold their paper and stock schemes.
bloody spaniard Offline
#34 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
That's interesting. I happen to know first hand, millionaires who collect social security. They must be the exception to the "means testing" rule.
Just another lie. Guess it all depends on who does your books.

And the Goldman folks that I was referring to are the ones assigned to sensitive government finance posts that dictate policy.
DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Just hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment about how Syria could avert a military strike by turning over its chemical weapons program, Russia's foreign minister is proposing that the Assad regime do just that.

Sergey Lavrov said Monday that Russia will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

The plan could challenge Kerry over comments he made during an earlier press conference in London. Kerry said early Monday morning that if Bashar Assad wanted to defuse the crisis, "he could turn every single bit of his chemical weapons over to the international community" within a week.

But Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified that Kerry "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

She added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago."

While the State Department tried to walk back Kerry's statement, Lavrov said he has already handed over the proposal and expects a "quick, and hopefully, positive answer."

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

His statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with President Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.

Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."

As Russia claims to be trying to defuse the crisis, the U.S. Congress is poised to begin voting this week on a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria.

Film at 11.... Think Think




Seems reasonable but now he was just kiddin... d'oh!
Gene363 Offline
#36 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
bloody spaniard wrote:
That's interesting. I happen to know first hand, millionaires who collect social security. They must be the exception to the "means testing" rule.
Just another lie. Guess it all depends on who does your books.

And the Goldman folks that I was referring to are the ones assigned to sensitive government finance posts that dictate policy.


Millionaires are a dime a dozen today. You didn't read the MJ article and it was just one page, nonetheless:

Quote:

Want some evidence? Well, it turns out that Social Security is already means tested: your benefit level is calculated as 90% of your first $749 in monthly pre-retirement earnings, 32% of earnings up to $4,517, and 15% of your earnings above that. This means that high-income earners get a smaller benefit as a percentage of their income than low earners do.


It's not punishment of the rich you appear to desire, but they get a lot less for what they put it, their benefits are capped.

It's going to take a lot more than restricting benefits to continue to fund SS.

Meanwhile, those rich bass turds are enjoying them selves. horse
bloody spaniard Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
intelligent retortBeer
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 11:01 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
BREAKING NEWS:
Syria "welcomes" Russia's proposal for President Bashar al-Assad's regime to put its chemical weapons under international control, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told reporters in Moscow today.

Film at 11...... d'oh!


I think we're about to find out how bad Obama wants to drop some bombs.... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#39 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 11:26 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The Russians. Should begin flying in troops immediately to guard the chemival weapons. Except the ones the rebels have.
HockeyDad Offline
#40 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 11:33 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
bloody spaniard wrote:
That's interesting. I happen to know first hand, millionaires who collect social security. They must be the exception to the "means testing" rule.
Just another lie. Guess it all depends on who does your books.

And the Goldman folks that I was referring to are the ones assigned to sensitive government finance posts that dictate policy.



High income earners also pay into social security. I'm not sure why their benefits should be confiscated.

That's like punishing success or is it just "paying your fair share"?
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
HockeyDad wrote:
The Russians. Should begin flying in troops immediately to guard the chemival weapons. Except the ones the rebels have.



I wonder if they have 'made in Iraq' stamps on them..... Think Think
bloody spaniard Offline
#42 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 1:47 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
HockeyDad wrote:
High income earners also pay into social security. I'm not sure why their benefits should be confiscated.
That's like punishing success or is it just "paying your fair share"?

Well in a perfect world, you're right.
BUT since the powerful/rich are greatly responsible for our current financial/social morass with their outsourcing, monopolies, open border lobbying, etc. they should take a large, generous bite of the new American shiite sammitch they helped create.
DrafterX Offline
#43 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 2:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
Damn those Bassards..!! how dare they employ tens or hundreds of thousands of good tax paying folks and expect to get a break..!! they should've stuck to driving the schoolbus or somethin... Mad
bloody spaniard Offline
#44 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrafterX wrote:
Damn those Bassards..!! how dare they employ tens or hundreds of thousands of good tax paying folks and expect to get a break..!! they should've stuck to driving the schoolbus or somethin... Mad

YEAH, fook 'em for costing us so many good jobs & lowering our standard of living by wasting money of wars that profit them, outsourcing, and for opening our borders & hiring illegals! YEAH!! Hang 'em all!!
Cursing

er... most Americans are employed by small business not corporations.
Think
Might be different for affirmative action jobs.
DrafterX Offline
#45 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
'Them' is a pretty big word... can you narrow it down a bit..?? Huh
bloody spaniard Offline
#46 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 2:49 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrafterX wrote:
'Them' is a pretty big word... can you narrow it down a bit..?? Huh

Hyperbole's no good if you're too specific.Gonz
DrafterX Offline
#47 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,574
ThumpUp
ZRX1200 Offline
#48 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 4:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,651
http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/crazy-footage-of-syrian-resistance-fighters-getting-vaporized/
Burner02 Offline
#49 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:02 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Have not read all of the inputs here, but it is pretty simple. All of the sides hate the U.S.A. We need to provide more weapons to all sides resulting in less muslims to deal with.

Really don't see what the problem is.
HockeyDad Offline
#50 Posted: Mon, Sep 9 2013, 7:09 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
bloody spaniard wrote:
Well in a perfect world, you're right.
BUT since the powerful/rich are greatly responsible for our current financial/social morass with their outsourcing, monopolies, open border lobbying, etc. they should take a large, generous bite of the new American shiite sammitch they helped create.



But it is a perfect world. (Under the cone)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top