« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Bubba's Bumbling  (Read 1911 times)

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2003, 02:15:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sixpence
Need based government aid..aka..welfare. So instead of them paying into their own retirement, you want them to collect tax paid welfare.


What is tax-paid welfare?  It's a redistribution of income from richer to poorer.
Many of us pay way more into SS than we will ever get out of it.  Which means that... SS is a redistribution of income from richer to poorer.


I'm not against the redistribution, at least not for old retired people.  What I'm against is the government forcing us to put large sums of money into an investment which has an abysmal rate of return.  

Let me invest my own money and take care of my own retirement.  There will be enough for me and enough left over that I can pay taxes to cover the elderly who need help.

TAKE YOUR DAMN HANDS OUT OF MY POCKETBOOK, WASHINGTON PIGS!!!  :D
« Last Edit: April 12, 2003, 02:18:37 AM by funkedup »
Logged

Offline Rasker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2003, 02:20:12 AM »
There was also a book by Gary Aldrich, FBI Liason to Clinton's office, "Unlimited Access", that makes excellent reading and quite likely confirms much of what Patterson's book covers.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2003, 02:24:48 AM by Rasker »
Logged

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2003, 02:25:46 AM »
Thanks Rasker, I'll put it on my Amazon wish list along with Patterson's opus.
Logged

Offline lord dolf vader

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2003, 02:57:20 AM »
i want my social security  perhaps the system needs some revamping a protection from the govemnet fund raiders.

but the silly conservatives need to stay away from social security


texas is suffering thru a horrible budget crisis thanks to bush.
19 out of 100 local teachers laid off last week but last year they were under staffed? my taxes and fuel prices went up more than the last decade in the las year under these republican fools.

guess that is what conservatives want for the nation. sigh


ohh and poor starving destitute old folks. who werent smart enought to invest. compasionate conservative indeed.
Logged

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2003, 05:16:19 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is anonymous = Tonto?


oh man i just got it. have mercy im not nearly as slow in person dude. and i also use better grammar and punctuation on official paperwork. :)
Logged

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2003, 05:44:37 AM »
I want to stay as far away from Social Security as I can.

How about this:

Stop deducting SS from my check and do not require a SS payments from my employer on my behalf.

Just give me back 50% of what I've put in over the years. Allow me to roll it over into a self-directed IRA. Just the principal, no interest. Deduct no taxes, no penalties.

When I reach retirement age, it's mine to do with as I please.

In return, I will gladly give up any and all "entitlements" to any sort of Government aid that I would normally be qualified for at retirement age.

Sound fair? I'm only asking for half of what I put in........ and anyone who wants to stay in the present system can do so.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2003, 05:46:47 AM by Toad »
Logged
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline osage

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2003, 06:33:59 AM »
Logged

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2003, 07:27:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
[I'm not against the redistribution, at least not for old retired people.  What I'm against is the government forcing us to put large sums of money into an investment which has an abysmal rate of return.  

Let me invest my own money and take care of my own retirement.  [/B]


Like I said before, I agree, you should have the option to "out" of S.S. and use that money as you feel. It's your money. My argument is scrapping it would be a bad idea. I think in the end alot more people would have not saved their and managed their money than people who did. And honestly, I want to keep my payments to S.S., i'm counting on it.

Now your rate of return depends on how long you are retired. Let's say I put 30k into S.S. through my lifetime. Then when I retire, I collect $1200.00 a month for 8 years of retirement(hopefully more). That is actually a pretty good return on your investment, no?
Logged
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2003, 10:19:28 AM »
Sixpence,

I am getting in late on this debate but would like to make a few points.

1.  Social Security -  That program was being raided to pay for other programs as early as 1974.  So Reagan didn't start the process.

2.  Clinton CUT the military and intelligence budgets during his first two years in the White House.  He would have continued to do so IF Congress had allowed him to, BUT, we all remember what happened during the Congressional elections of 1994, DONT WE!

3.  As a native Arkansan, I have been watching the antics of Slick Willie a lot longer than you boys have.  Make no mistake about it, He and his "wife" have demonstrated on many occasions their true feelings about the military.  While few of us on these boards would question the motives of our military personnel, they could and did do that very thing.  While Hillary is usually seen as the more "radical" of the two, he's a close second.  Ole Slick just hides his a lot better.

Regards, Shuckins
Logged

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2003, 12:11:18 PM »
I like military spending in all honesty. I think more money should be spent on research and development. Kidney stones are now an outpatient procedure because of work done in the military. Research and development spins off into the medical and other fields.

My point is scrapping S.S.(imo) is not the best way to go. I've payed alot into it and i'm expecting it to be there if and when I get there.
Logged
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Rasker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2003, 12:20:33 PM »
Hey Funkedup, Halfprice books is selling new copies of "Unlimited Access" for 98 cents, plus, I assume, shipping and handling.  Gary Aldrich continues to write commentary on some conservative web sites
Logged

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2003, 12:30:33 PM »
BTW, you mention Clinton inaction. He did try to get support for action against Iraq. He couldn't do it. In one debate where he was trying to rally support, he got roasted. Chants of no blood for oil filled the forum. I found a bunch of links "clinton action against saddam" in a google search. Some good reading. I would like to find the debate I saw on the history channel when he tried to get support on action against saddam. It really was a disaster. If not for 9/11 I don't think Bush would of had the support either. I still can't believe the U.N. would not support saddams removal. Now they want to jump in and take all the credit for it, crack me up.
Logged
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2003, 01:36:54 PM »
clinton had some of our guys training with the pakis to go after bin laden. op got scrapped when military coup took place in pakistan. in that case you cant really blame him for putting op on hold. last thing you want is a few of our guys in deep weeds a long way from home and no buddies or support for several hundred miles in any direction. the guys were still good to go for the op but when you are waiting to go you have all the perspective of a dobie. thats what bosses away from the action exist for sometimes is to  lend perspective to the go or no go call.
Logged

Offline Frogm4n

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
Bubba's Bumbling
« Reply #73 on: April 12, 2003, 02:14:54 PM »
dont forget anything that clinton tried to do was pretty much blocked by the republicans in congress. Of course then it wasnt treason and some reason it is now.
Logged

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
rpm371
« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2003, 09:36:03 AM »
Ok, I get it now, heh, thanks for the clarification!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
« previous next »