Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
I haven’t.
It’s added to my (fucking gigantic) reading list (but I would have it no other way).
Particularly evil to religion it seems in many cases.
How can we take it back?
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
It’s added to my (fucking gigantic) reading list (but I would have it no other way).
Particularly evil to religion it seems in many cases.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9 Mediator
Just popping in to post this!
I'm so dannnged excited to see more evidence of the unravelling. I realize the US can expect some turbulence to happen .....but in the end we will come out stronger in our kindness, compassion, and sense of social equality.
Keep the Love smoldering in your hearts and ready to fan the flames.
http://www.commdiginews.com/busines...move-rocks-euro-dollar-and-wall-street-33395/
Swiss central bank move rocks Euro, dollar and Wall Street
I'm so dannnged excited to see more evidence of the unravelling. I realize the US can expect some turbulence to happen .....but in the end we will come out stronger in our kindness, compassion, and sense of social equality.
Keep the Love smoldering in your hearts and ready to fan the flames.
http://www.commdiginews.com/busines...move-rocks-euro-dollar-and-wall-street-33395/
Swiss central bank move rocks Euro, dollar and Wall Street
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
[video=youtube;i2XTuc6i1Uo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&feature=player_detailpage&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=i2XTuc6i1Uo[/video]
Dohavior
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- sp/sx/so
Sure it can desecrate the lore, but not the methods. It is law of attraction type magical thinking at its worse.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Just because you don’t agree with the viewpoint of the thread doesn’t mean that people have mental disorders…that’s a bit of an assumption.
I’m asking for money that has come to permeate politics be removed or at the very least - regulated.
I’m asking for the progressive tax code that we once had in the US that allowed us to pay for infrastructure, education, etc. to be reinstated because Reaganomics doesn’t work, it never worked, it has only served as a funnel of money to the top.
I’m asking for people to be paid a LIVING wage. No one can survive on minimum wage, and people on minimum wage cannot afford higher education now.
I think it’s ridiculous that we are 47th in world in quality of healthcare and yet we pay far more than anyone else in the world…that isn’t because of what healthcare employees are paid…this is because our government has allowed us to be continuously gouged by insurance companies and hospitals.
A single-payer program would have done away with health insurance companies altogether, of course they are going to try and scare us with so-called “death panels”, which the insurance companies ALREADY have. Or…it’s socialism…OMG! No…it would be a social program…like the Postal Service.
The ACA failed insomuch that the health insurance companies still run things, and still gouge you…but it succeeded in establishing laws that protect the consumer…like not being able to dump you when you are fighting cancer (which they did ((that’s a death panel))…it also says that a certain amount of profits MUST go back to the consumer…we had insurance companies denying to pay for certain services and yet their profits were record year after year.
I am asking for people to be put back in front of profits.
I am asking for our Congress to quit acting like the money-whores they are and pass some actual bills that would help America.
Like repealing “Citizen’s United” and NOT allowing people like the Koch Brothers to rewrite the laws in their favor…tearing down environmental protections as they go.
They themselves…not even counting all their donors supporting them…are predicted to spend $889 MILLION dollars on the next election.
How is that democracy?
It isn’t.
I could continue to go on but I think I made my point…I am willing to pay…monetarily, bodily, etc. now, in order for my Son to have a better life than I…and for his children.
Things must be set back on course since I am the first generation since the 1930’s to have it worse off than my parents.
The short-sighted greed that is running the show now does not have the best interest of this country in mind…they especially don’t have the best interest of the working class…they have their own greedy goals and they have shown they aren’t afraid to crash the economy in order to make higher profits.
Profits of which btw…it’s estimated that there is $21 TRILLION dollars in offshore bank accounts and tax shelters that NO taxes are taken from, putting the burden squarely on the shoulders of the working class instead of the upper-classes contributing their fair share.
In fact, we give many subsidies that are completely unnecessary and only contribute to the profit margins of these corporations like big Oil.
Instead of judging me, why don’t you make suggestions?
(Or perhaps you would like my mental evaluation of you since you so kindly offered your’s of me?)
Last edited:
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker just cut $300 million from universities while proposing $220 million for a new NBA stadium.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 GOP contender who never earned a college degree, has proposed a huge cut in funding for the University of Wisconsin system over the next two years.
Walker’s office pitched the plan, which is part of the governor’s budget proposal, boasting it would give the university system more discretion over its finances. But it also carries a $300 million cut and a tuition freeze for the UW system over two years. That amounts to a 13% decrease of state funding for the university system, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Last edited:
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
You know, why focus so much energy on taking healthcare away from people instead of focusing on how to improve the law and insure more people?
Disgusting and amazing the levels of greed and disregard for human life.
(Just look at these Asshats)
Many Republicans would view it as a dream come true if the Supreme Court were to slash a centerpiece of Obamacare by the end of June.
But that dream could fade into a nightmare as the spotlight turns to the Republican Congress to fix the mayhem that could ensue.
"It's an opportunity that we've failed at for two decades. We've not been particularly close to being on the same page on this subject for two decades," said a congressional Republican health policy aide who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.
"So this idea — we're ready to go?
Actually no, we're not."
Republican leaders recognize the dilemma.
In King v. Burwell, they roundly claim the court ought to invalidate insurance subsidies in some three-dozen states, and that Congress must be ready with a response once they do.
But conversations with more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and aides indicate that the party is nowhere close to a solution.
Outside health policy experts consulted by the Republicans are also at odds on how the party should respond.
The party that has failed to unify behind an alternative to Obamacare for many years now has five months to reach an agreement.
It's an unenviable predicament, especially for the congressional Republicans leading the effort to devise a response — all of whom hail from states that could lose their subsidies.
"There are a lot of ideas," Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch (UT) told TPM on Tuesday.
"If the case goes the way I think it should go ... then we've gotta come up with a way of resolving the problems we're in. We're quietly looking at all that and trying to do that."
For now, the GOP's goal is to "make the world safe for [Chief Justice John] Roberts to overturn" the Obamacare subsidies, said one prominent outside conservative close to Republican lawmakers and the case, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
"What I worry about is — the goal is to not let our guys look like they're going crazy and letting the world spin into chaos."
In other words, Republicans must show they're willing and able to deal with the issue.
House Republicans held a strategy meeting on Jan. 15 at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about contingency plans for the King v. Burwell ruling, led by House Ways & Means Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Energy & Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-MI).
Senate Republicans have set up a working group to hash out a plan, led by Hatch, Health Committee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Policy Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY), a doctor.
TPM spoke to the three senators about what the party's plan should be, but none of them offered any details.
From left, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. , Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Alexander said, "If the court rules that the law is what the law actually is, states still have the option to create a state exchange and keep their subsidies."
In an illustration of the depth of the struggle, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told TPM he would support the old Wyden-Bennett health care plan from 2009 if the court guts the ACA.
But there's one problem: that bill has an individual mandate similar to Obamacare, making it a political death-sentence for GOP leaders.
Avik Roy, a conservative health care adviser, laid out the party's options at the strategy meeting in Hershey: do nothing, work with Democrats to fix the law, or seize what he calls "their best opportunity to reform the health care system" and propose a serious conservative alternative.
Republicans don't view the first two options as viable.
Republican aides to the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate didn't have any news to report about the way forward.
Privately there is concern among GOP health policy aides that — contrary to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) contention that the Supreme Court could create an "opportunity" for a "major do-over" on health care reform if it rules against the government in King — the party won't be ready with a viable solution in time.
One big challenge, the Republican aide said, is that a GOP plan would be unlikely to cover as many people, making it an easy piñata for Democrats to pound.
"That's the brutal truth. We have a problem with that for very specific reasons. We don't have good responses," the aide said. "Show me the constituent in a town hall meeting who you can tell it's OK for them to lose their health insurance."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., emerges from a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Thomas Miller, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said Republicans are unlikely to have a "fully formed" plan before the ruling.
He said it would be a slow burn — they may have to "let off some steam" with repeal votes before they vote on serious solutions.
"Certainly there are cross-pressures and impulses within just the Republican ranks on this," he said. "There are issues that are not going to be fleshed out — a consensus is not going to be reached in advance of the King decision."
But Miller said it's important to build support for a set of proposals ahead of the ruling and have legislation on the shelf that "gets the job done in a period of several weeks in late June to early July."
He proposed three broad ideas to fill the hole the Supreme Court might create: a tax-credit mechanism (which could be income-sensitive, age-adjusted, or a flat dollar amount), block grants to states, and reforms to the exchanges.
None will be easy to secure support for.
"You also may need to find space in the budget resolution to deal with contingencies," he said, which will be a challenge because the budget is due in April, before a decision is expected. "You're trying to pass a wide enough corridor so you can use it. That involves a lot of creativity."
Setting aside the big question of whether some of their proposals are workable as a matter of politics or policy, the inability of outside conservative experts to agree on a response further highlights the Republicans' dilemma.
Roy's preferred approach is to use a King ruling as basis to weaken Obamacare regulations and mandates.
He proposes legislation to keep the federal subsidies for all states with one caveat: they can choose between setting up an Obamacare-style state exchange and a more deregulated exchange, potentially free of rules like forcing insurers to accept customers with pre-existing conditions or provide a minimum package of essential benefits.
Conservative policy wonks Jim Capretta and Yuval Levin disagree.
They want the GOP to offer a more sweeping alternative that lets states opt out of Obamacare entirely, and lets insured Americans receive a federal "age-based credit" to buy health insurance allowed in their state.
Obamacare mandates would no longer apply — people could buy comprehensive coverage or bare-bones catastrophic plans that the Affordable Care Act is phasing out.
"It would show voters that a better system is possible—and at a far lower cost—without ObamaCare’s punishing taxes, burdensome mandates and inept micromanagement," Capretta and Levin wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
From left are, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Md., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., and Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
If offering a plan seems difficult, the GOP's other options are even more fraught.
The "let it burn" option means doing nothing as millions of Americans in three dozen states lose their subsidies.
Many of them would no longer be able to afford insurance or seek waivers.
Insurers would be forced to raise prices as they lose younger, healthier customers — causing them to lose more customers.
This is plausible in the near-term if Republicans fail to propose a viable alternative.
But the "death spiral" would eventually compel a fix.
The second option means teaming up with Democrats to enact a legislative fix to make clear that the subsidies are available to Americans in all states.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) last week told TPM that there should be a fix if the court rules against the government.
But however strong the pressure, countervailing sentiments in the GOP base against Obamacare are likely too powerful to make it palatable.
Republicans also aren't ready to call on their states to set up exchanges, likely because conservatives could attack that as supporting Obamacare.
Asked about the prospect Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Alexander demurred. Each would face a situation where many of their constituents lose insurance subsidies and perhaps their coverage.
"Our members are discussing this issue along with all the other failures of Obamacare," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell. "But I don't have any announcements just yet."
As the court gets closer to hearing arguments in the case, there is a gap between the excitement among GOP political operatives and the nervousness of at least some GOP policy aides.
"Our guys feel like: King wins, game over, we win. No. In fact: King wins, they [the Obama administration and Democrats] hold a lot of high cards," the congressional Republican health policy aide said. "And we hold what?"
Disgusting and amazing the levels of greed and disregard for human life.
(Just look at these Asshats)
Republicans Are At A Loss On What To Do If SCOTUS Nixes Obamacare Subsidies
Many Republicans would view it as a dream come true if the Supreme Court were to slash a centerpiece of Obamacare by the end of June.
But that dream could fade into a nightmare as the spotlight turns to the Republican Congress to fix the mayhem that could ensue.
"It's an opportunity that we've failed at for two decades. We've not been particularly close to being on the same page on this subject for two decades," said a congressional Republican health policy aide who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.
"So this idea — we're ready to go?
Actually no, we're not."
Republican leaders recognize the dilemma.
In King v. Burwell, they roundly claim the court ought to invalidate insurance subsidies in some three-dozen states, and that Congress must be ready with a response once they do.
But conversations with more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and aides indicate that the party is nowhere close to a solution.
Outside health policy experts consulted by the Republicans are also at odds on how the party should respond.
The party that has failed to unify behind an alternative to Obamacare for many years now has five months to reach an agreement.
It's an unenviable predicament, especially for the congressional Republicans leading the effort to devise a response — all of whom hail from states that could lose their subsidies.
"There are a lot of ideas," Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch (UT) told TPM on Tuesday.
"If the case goes the way I think it should go ... then we've gotta come up with a way of resolving the problems we're in. We're quietly looking at all that and trying to do that."
For now, the GOP's goal is to "make the world safe for [Chief Justice John] Roberts to overturn" the Obamacare subsidies, said one prominent outside conservative close to Republican lawmakers and the case, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
"What I worry about is — the goal is to not let our guys look like they're going crazy and letting the world spin into chaos."
In other words, Republicans must show they're willing and able to deal with the issue.
House Republicans held a strategy meeting on Jan. 15 at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about contingency plans for the King v. Burwell ruling, led by House Ways & Means Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Energy & Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-MI).
Senate Republicans have set up a working group to hash out a plan, led by Hatch, Health Committee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Policy Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY), a doctor.
TPM spoke to the three senators about what the party's plan should be, but none of them offered any details.
From left, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. , Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
In an illustration of the depth of the struggle, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told TPM he would support the old Wyden-Bennett health care plan from 2009 if the court guts the ACA.
But there's one problem: that bill has an individual mandate similar to Obamacare, making it a political death-sentence for GOP leaders.
Avik Roy, a conservative health care adviser, laid out the party's options at the strategy meeting in Hershey: do nothing, work with Democrats to fix the law, or seize what he calls "their best opportunity to reform the health care system" and propose a serious conservative alternative.
Republicans don't view the first two options as viable.
Republican aides to the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate didn't have any news to report about the way forward.
Privately there is concern among GOP health policy aides that — contrary to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) contention that the Supreme Court could create an "opportunity" for a "major do-over" on health care reform if it rules against the government in King — the party won't be ready with a viable solution in time.
One big challenge, the Republican aide said, is that a GOP plan would be unlikely to cover as many people, making it an easy piñata for Democrats to pound.
"That's the brutal truth. We have a problem with that for very specific reasons. We don't have good responses," the aide said. "Show me the constituent in a town hall meeting who you can tell it's OK for them to lose their health insurance."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., emerges from a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Thomas Miller, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said Republicans are unlikely to have a "fully formed" plan before the ruling.
He said it would be a slow burn — they may have to "let off some steam" with repeal votes before they vote on serious solutions.
"Certainly there are cross-pressures and impulses within just the Republican ranks on this," he said. "There are issues that are not going to be fleshed out — a consensus is not going to be reached in advance of the King decision."
But Miller said it's important to build support for a set of proposals ahead of the ruling and have legislation on the shelf that "gets the job done in a period of several weeks in late June to early July."
He proposed three broad ideas to fill the hole the Supreme Court might create: a tax-credit mechanism (which could be income-sensitive, age-adjusted, or a flat dollar amount), block grants to states, and reforms to the exchanges.
None will be easy to secure support for.
"You also may need to find space in the budget resolution to deal with contingencies," he said, which will be a challenge because the budget is due in April, before a decision is expected. "You're trying to pass a wide enough corridor so you can use it. That involves a lot of creativity."
Setting aside the big question of whether some of their proposals are workable as a matter of politics or policy, the inability of outside conservative experts to agree on a response further highlights the Republicans' dilemma.
Roy's preferred approach is to use a King ruling as basis to weaken Obamacare regulations and mandates.
He proposes legislation to keep the federal subsidies for all states with one caveat: they can choose between setting up an Obamacare-style state exchange and a more deregulated exchange, potentially free of rules like forcing insurers to accept customers with pre-existing conditions or provide a minimum package of essential benefits.
Conservative policy wonks Jim Capretta and Yuval Levin disagree.
They want the GOP to offer a more sweeping alternative that lets states opt out of Obamacare entirely, and lets insured Americans receive a federal "age-based credit" to buy health insurance allowed in their state.
Obamacare mandates would no longer apply — people could buy comprehensive coverage or bare-bones catastrophic plans that the Affordable Care Act is phasing out.
"It would show voters that a better system is possible—and at a far lower cost—without ObamaCare’s punishing taxes, burdensome mandates and inept micromanagement," Capretta and Levin wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
From left are, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Md., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., and Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
The "let it burn" option means doing nothing as millions of Americans in three dozen states lose their subsidies.
Many of them would no longer be able to afford insurance or seek waivers.
Insurers would be forced to raise prices as they lose younger, healthier customers — causing them to lose more customers.
This is plausible in the near-term if Republicans fail to propose a viable alternative.
But the "death spiral" would eventually compel a fix.
The second option means teaming up with Democrats to enact a legislative fix to make clear that the subsidies are available to Americans in all states.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) last week told TPM that there should be a fix if the court rules against the government.
But however strong the pressure, countervailing sentiments in the GOP base against Obamacare are likely too powerful to make it palatable.
Republicans also aren't ready to call on their states to set up exchanges, likely because conservatives could attack that as supporting Obamacare.
Asked about the prospect Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Alexander demurred. Each would face a situation where many of their constituents lose insurance subsidies and perhaps their coverage.
"Our members are discussing this issue along with all the other failures of Obamacare," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell. "But I don't have any announcements just yet."
As the court gets closer to hearing arguments in the case, there is a gap between the excitement among GOP political operatives and the nervousness of at least some GOP policy aides.
"Our guys feel like: King wins, game over, we win. No. In fact: King wins, they [the Obama administration and Democrats] hold a lot of high cards," the congressional Republican health policy aide said. "And we hold what?"
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Who died before they collected Social Security?
KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL
EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT...
THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT
TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!
WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and Me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.
Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).
After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME
THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!
Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some Kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits?
� free healthcare,
� outrageous retirement packages,
� 67 paid holidays,
� three weeks paid vacation,
� unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for It all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.
Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Sad isn't it?
KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL
EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT...
THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!
THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT
TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!
WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and Me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.
Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).
After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME
THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!
Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some Kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits?
� free healthcare,
� outrageous retirement packages,
� 67 paid holidays,
� three weeks paid vacation,
� unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for It all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.
Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Sad isn't it?
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
The University of Phoenix is spending $154.4 million to name this year’s #Superbowl stadium through 2026.
The American taxpayer — and America’s veterans -- are paying for that, because 92% of UofP's revenue comes from taxpayer dollars.
It's time to change that.
http://bit.ly/StudentsNotStadiums
The American taxpayer — and America’s veterans -- are paying for that, because 92% of UofP's revenue comes from taxpayer dollars.
It's time to change that.
http://bit.ly/StudentsNotStadiums
Last edited:
