Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

Yes, because poor old people are lazy and don't deserve to be kept out of poverty after a lifetime of work.

Your post honestly depressed me. So many millions of people struggling to get by after a long hard life, and you want return them to abject poverty from just barely getting by, because you "don't really care honestly." I don't want to live in a society that has that view.

I didn't mean it in that way. I meant if you don't have the personal responsibility to save up for your own retirement then I shouldn't have to be the one to suffer for that. This isn't the 1930s anymore where people didn't go to college and old people got lost in a factory/industrial-driven world that didn't need them anymore. Everything is technology/computer dependent now with less focus on manual labor. Old people can sit at a desk and do all the shit young people do because it isn't physically demanding.

I would much rather all of this class bullshit go away and we all lived in a decent/comfortable middle class system. I want classes to go away entirely so there's no poor/rich but instead we all pool our resources to provide for each other. But since America is pretty much the opposite of that at the moment I have to survive too. I don't like having to give money that I could better use to help me survive. If the system were different and I knew my money was helping other people my age (and their money helping me) then I wouldn't complain but that's not how it is.

And I don't want to keep the money just so I can get another game/luxury, I want it so I can buy food without having to wonder if I'll have enough for next week's metrocard. I live paycheck to paycheck too, the difference is I'm young and haven't had an entire life's chance to save up money like old people have.

People like you who say "I don't know if I'm going to live until I'm 65" are the exact reason why Social Security exists.

Yea but if I live until I'm 40 and then die I just wasted a shitload of money that I could've used to make my life better for the last 20 years. (Although I'll be dead so I won't care, but you catch my drift) Why not just let me keep it and decide what I want to do with it? If I get to age 70 and I don't have anything saved for myself I would personally feel morally wrong to take from other people. It would be a gross lack of personal responsibility.

However I consider this this very different from people who got sick or had bad luck and some huge problem that caused their savings to drown. I'm 100% in favor of helping these people. But then it should be on a case to case basis, not some huge sweeping mandatory thing.

Some people can't afford to put away money for retirement, some just don't think far enough into the future, other people's retirement investments were annihilated by the recent stock bubble bursting, and some people lose all their money because they get sick and health care in this country is really god damn expensive even with insurance.

There's a lot of shit that can go wrong in a person's life. I find it strange that you acknowledge that people, especially young people, won't anticipate saving for retirement but don't make the connection that it's why mandated Social Security is a necessity. It is the most basic retirement plan that everyone starts with.

I feel like healthcare and education should take precedence much sooner than social security. Healthcare and education should be rights from birth imo and everyone should have access to them. If everyone had access to healthcare/education it seems like we wouldn't need social security. People would be able to live better lives, get jobs they enjoy, save money and so on. In that case people would only be dependent on social security if something really bad happened to them and they needed the money (which is perfectly fine), but now it seems like it's become this goal or finish line for everyone.

You should consider that taxes don't actually fund the program. Which is to say that the tax structure, although purporting to tax you for this program, is really just taxing you to tax you. We could have a social security program without a regressive payroll tax.

(This isn't to say that no taxes are necessary; it's just to say that you shouldn't really think of any taxes imposed on you as going towards any particular government spending program. The tax structure should be devised entirely independently of particular programs and spending the government does.)

I don't know anything about this but am interested. Where does that money go? Not looking for a debate just want to learn more about this, maybe there's no real reason for me to be whining. All I know is what it says on the check every week but I'm sure there's much more to it than that.

 

[KtSlime]

I keep hearing from the righties that SS was just supposed to be a temporary thing that would be phased out in a couple years, or decades at the most. That sounds really strange to me because don't the people on social security get their checks due to younger workers paying into the system? How can you have such a system and then attempt to phase it out?

That's the trick, you can't. It would really destroy the US if we were able to choose to not pay in, or privatize it.

I'm convinced that the politicians on the Right just do not care. They don't want to make it more efficient, they don't really even want the privatization of it to be successful - because there is no way it would be. They just want it gone, which will save them a couple of bucks so they can play with it, and it will grow the divide between the wealthy and the poor further driving the poor into a serfdom. The old either die in poverty, or their children (if they have them) might spend their money they should be saving towards their own retirement helping their parents out, and then have more borrowing from the wealthy to make ends meet, and working more to try and make up the difference, all while their own children are coming of age to go to college. It's a vicious cycle.

GhaleonEB: His comment made me sad as well.

Angry Fork: SS also helps out with serious conditions, such as if you were in an accident and became paralyzed. You may no longer be able to continue to save up, and might have to be supported in some part by SS. Plus the taxes you pay into SS aren't really yours. If you didn't have to pay into SS the private sector would adjust your rates accordingly - you'd probably take home a bit more than you are now, but not the full amount you are already paying into SS extra.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The right also brings up abled bodies shouldn't be allowed to receive those benefits.

Old people can sit at a desk and do all the shit young people do because it isn't physically demanding.

Their mental capacity isn't what it was when they were in their 20s and 30s.

 

[Zabka]

Yea but if I live until I'm 40 and then die I just wasted a shitload of money that I could've used to make my life better for the last 20 years. (Although I'll be dead so I won't care, but you catch my drift) Why not just let me keep it and decide what I want to do with it? If I get to age 70 and I don't have anything saved for myself I would personally feel morally wrong to take from other people. It would be a gross lack of personal responsibility.

You argue for the ability to avoid paying towards your own retirement then admit that it would be a "gross lack of personal responsibility." To understand you have to look at what society was lack before SS existed. From this article, "Before Social Security, almost half of elderly Americans had income below the poverty line, reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Roughly 12 percent of elderly citizens are considered poor today. The program lifted more than 11 million out of poverty — more than 60 percent of those were women."

I feel like healthcare and education should take precedence much sooner than social security. Healthcare and education should be rights from birth imo and everyone should have access to them. If everyone had access to healthcare/education it seems like we wouldn't need social security. People would be able to live better lives, get jobs they enjoy, save money and so on. In that case people would only be dependent on social security if something really bad happened to them and they needed the money (which is perfectly fine), but now it seems like it's become this goal or finish line for everyone.

If people can opt out then the system collapses and Social Security won't be around to help anyone. Not the people who paid into it, not the sick, and not the poor.

You can argue all day about personal responsibility and what people should be doing but you have to face the reality that shit happens and people don't always think ahead.

 

[Angry Fork]

You argue for the ability to avoid paying towards your own retirement then admit that it would be a "gross lack of personal responsibility."

I don't like the idea of being forced to pay for my own retirement without my choice though that's my main objection. If I want to save up for retirement I should do it on my own accord when I feel like it. The reality is the money is instead going to other people and when I turn 65 I won't be getting the money I earned it'll be whatever was taken from someone else.

The other points are fine and I understand, but if other people don't think ahead why should I be punished for it? I'm 100% in favor of pooling our resources while we're still young or productive for our entire lives, but why wait until we're old to reap the benefits? Why not enforce a mandatory tax for other important things like healthcare/education?

It just feels wrong to me that social security is still around, something that I may or may not get to take advantage of 50 years from now, but to get a check up at the doctor or dentist requires what I believe to be a ridiculous overcharge. Shit why not go a step further and take a huge chunk of that national defense budget and set up some nationwide nursing home program.

 

[Oblivion]

Is medicare also funded the same way as SS? Current recipients are funded by people currently in the work force?

 

[Plinko]

Just got a chance to take that USA Today matching candidate quiz:

1) Jon Huntsman -- 59.6%
2) Mitt Romney -- 52.5%
3) Barack Obama -- 50.1%

Looks like I'm in good shape for this election.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Just got a chance to take that USA Today matching candidate quiz:

1) Jon Huntsman -- 59.6%
2) Mitt Romney -- 52.5%
3) Barack Obama -- 50.1%

Looks like I'm in good shape for this election.

good man.

 

[Chichikov]

I keep hearing from the righties that SS was just supposed to be a temporary thing that would be phased out in a couple years, or decades at the most. That sounds really strange to me because don't the people on social security get their checks due to younger workers paying into the system? How can you have such a system and then attempt to phase it out?

Who care what it was intended for?
We have it now, now we need to ask ourselves how would the country be best served.
Let those who want to abolish or privatize it make their case.
This is just some weird quasi-legal argument that does little more than muddy the water.

 

[Zabka]

I don't like the idea of being forced to pay for my own retirement without my choice though that's my main objection. If I want to save up for retirement I should do it on my own accord when I feel like it. The reality is the money is instead going to other people and when I turn 65 I won't be getting the money I earned it'll be whatever was taken from someone else.

The other points are fine and I understand, but if other people don't think ahead why should I be punished for it? I'm 100% in favor of pooling our resources while we're still young or productive for our entire lives, but why wait until we're old to reap the benefits? Why not enforce a mandatory tax for other important things like healthcare/education?

You seem to be hung up on trivial issues. It's not a system of punishment or rewards. It's a system designed to keep society healthy.

And the system is a lot more complex than you seem to be aware of. It's not like you turn 65 and boom you get a big check in the mail every month. The amount of money you receive depends on how much you put into it. I think if it was known by the name of its most common function (Retirement Insurance Benefits) a lot of people wouldn't be so confused by it.

 

[Cyan]

Candidate quiz gives me Bams, Doc Ronnie, and Huntsman.

Exciting times.

 

[ReBurn]

I keep hearing from the righties that SS was just supposed to be a temporary thing that would be phased out in a couple years, or decades at the most. That sounds really strange to me because don't the people on social security get their checks due to younger workers paying into the system? How can you have such a system and then attempt to phase it out?

Righties don't want to end Social Security. That's rhetoric from lefties born out of the gross hyperbole that is political speech. Every politician knows that if they took action to try to eliminate retirement insurance for the elderly that all of the retirees in Florida would hop into tour buses, come up to Washington, and forcibly remove anyone trying to do it. It is not on the conservative agenda to eliminate Social Security, no matter how many times some liberal politician says it.

There are people who believe that Social Security can run more efficiently and thus allow the government to spend less on it. Perhaps it's true. But we'll never know because any time such a proposal is put forward someone always hollers that someone wants to cut benefits.

 

[Volimar]

 

[Oblivion]

Righties don't want to end Social Security. That's rhetoric from lefties born out of the gross hyperbole that is political speech. Every politician knows that if they took action to try to eliminate retirement insurance for the elderly that all of the retirees in Florida would hop into tour buses, come up to Washington, and forcibly remove anyone trying to do it. It is not on the conservative agenda to eliminate Social Security, no matter how many times some liberal politician says it.

There are people who believe that Social Security can run more efficiently and thus allow the government to spend less on it. Perhaps it's true. But we'll never know because any time such a proposal is put forward someone always hollers that someone wants to cut benefits.

Do you support the Ryan plan?

 

[Chichikov]

Righties don't want to end Social Security. That's rhetoric from lefties born out of the gross hyperbole that is political speech. Every politician knows that if they took action to try to eliminate retirement insurance for the elderly that all of the retirees in Florida would hop into tour buses, come up to Washington, and forcibly remove anyone trying to do it. It is not on the conservative agenda to eliminate Social Security, no matter how many times some liberal politician says it.

There are people who believe that Social Security can run more efficiently and thus allow the government to spend less on it. Perhaps it's true. But we'll never know because any time such a proposal is put forward someone always hollers that someone wants to cut benefits.

Repealing the new deal and rolling back social security was a conservative dogma for a long time.
I'm not saying every Republican out there thinks that, but there are many that do.
Also, I would love to hear more conservative articulate how the reconcile their supposed ideology with their support for social security.

p.s.
LOL at that focus on the family John 3:16 ad.

 

[Volimar]

Also, I would love to hear more conservative articulate how the reconcile their supposed ideology with their support for social security.

"Well, we want to end social programs but we know that AARP can motivate its base like no other and we don't want to lose, so now we want to end social programs except social security."

-Republican response if speaker was under a truthoscope.

 

[ReBurn]

Do you support the Ryan plan?

I don't know what it is, but I doubt it. I happen to think that social security spending is both acceptable and necessary. It's fuel for the economy. If those billions suddenly disappeared it would be more than the disabled and elderly that would be hurt.

Repealing the new deal and rolling back social security was a conservative dogma for a long time.
I'm not saying every Republican out there thinks that, but there are many that do.
Also, I would love to hear more conservative articulate how the reconcile their supposed ideology with their support for social security.

p.s.
LOL at that focus on the family John 3:16 ad.

Well, Social Security was created in 1935 and the New Deal in 1933. After this time all it can be is dogma.

 

[PhoenixDark]

https://twitter.com/DemocratMachine/status/158378573072314368

lol

 

[A27_StarWolf]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...ut-handful-of-cash-to-impoverished-supporter/

I lol'd more.

 

[ReBurn]

"Well, we want to end social programs but we know that AARP can motivate its base like no other and we don't want to lose, so now we want to end social programs except social security."

-Republican response if speaker was under a truthoscope.

Where it all falls apart is when the people change the context and replace the word "reform" with "end" in their rhetoric. It's an effective scare tactic since people believe sound bytes. However, there's nothing wrong with reforming or eliminating ineffective government programs, even social programs, that don't fulfill their purpose effectively. I bet even president Obama would agree, considering his request this week for the power to consolidate and downsize programs and departments meant to help small business. He's talked about making government more efficient all along.

 

[Volimar]

Where it all falls apart is when the people change the context and replace the word "reform" with "end" in their rhetoric. It's an effective scare tactic since people believe sound bytes. However, there's nothing wrong with reforming or eliminating ineffective government programs, even social programs, that don't fulfill their purpose effectively. I bet even president Obama would agree, considering his request this week for the power to consolidate and downsize programs and departments meant to help small business. He's talked about making government more efficient all along.

Absolutely agree. Reform of social programs is desperately needed.

 

[KtSlime]

Where it all falls apart is when the people change the context and replace the word "reform" with "end" in their rhetoric. It's an effective scare tactic since people believe sound bytes. However, there's nothing wrong with reforming or eliminating ineffective government programs, even social programs, that don't fulfill their purpose effectively. I bet even president Obama would agree, considering his request this week for the power to consolidate and downsize programs and departments meant to help small business. He's talked about making government more efficient all along.

I just don't understand how anyone could think that privatization wouldn't kill its effectiveness. Maybe the private sector could streamline it a bit, save some money here or there, change some rules so it is serving less people with maybe equivalent or slightly worse service. But I think all of those aspects will be nullified when you consider they would be doing it to try and turn a profit for share holders in the company, and that there will be competition which for things like insurance make no sense. And if there are provisions to allow people to not pay into it, then the former tax, which is now a premium, could go up since less people are paying into it - and a lot less if there are 3 or 4 different 'SS' providers.

Could SS be improved, sure, no doubt. Is the republican platform of privatization the way to do it? No fucking way.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...ut-handful-of-cash-to-impoverished-supporter/

I lol'd more.

Directly handing out cash...should be illegal I would think.

Oh and shouldn't conservatives be aghast by this? Imagine if Obama had given money away to someone.

Where it all falls apart is when the people change the context and replace the word "reform" with "end" in their rhetoric. It's an effective scare tactic since people believe sound bytes. However, there's nothing wrong with reforming or eliminating ineffective government programs, even social programs, that don't fulfill their purpose effectively. I bet even president Obama would agree, considering his request this week for the power to consolidate and downsize programs and departments meant to help small business. He's talked about making government more efficient all along.

Obama has made enough concessions in terms of reform for Medicare/SS. It was a part of his big deal he offered Boehner but he rejected.

Democrats want to start SS Reform by removing the 106k cap on SS Tax.

 

[Kusagari]

I just got some Romney ad while watching the Tebow game where all he did was talk about how Santorum can't beat Obama.

 

[RDreamer]

I just got some Romney ad while watching the Tebow game where all he did was talk about how Santorum can't beat Obama.

Wow, there's one opinion Romney has that I can agree with after all.

 

[RoninChaos]

I didn't mean it in that way. I meant if you don't have the personal responsibility to save up for your own retirement then I shouldn't have to be the one to suffer for that.

I would much rather all of this class bullshit go away and we all lived in a decent/comfortable middle class system. I want classes to go away entirely so there's no poor/rich but instead we all pool our resources to provide for each other.

... what?

What you said in the first paragraph and then in the second makes literally NO FUCKING SENSE.

I mean, ... really?

You want to pool resources to provide for each other, which is what Social Security essentially is, but you don't want to put in your share?

... Are you fucking serious? Did you even READ what you wrote? Or process it before the submit reply button was hit?

You aren't "suffering" because you're paying into SS. If you live to be old enough to collect it, then you'll start collecting it.

WTF, man.

 

[Kosmo]

Directly handing out cash...should be illegal I would think.

Better $50 out of his own pocket than millions out of the taxpayers pocket.

And, your stimulus dollars ar work - for Chinese firms: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-...513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944

Apparently we have a shortage of welders...?

 

[KtSlime]

Better $50 out of his own pocket than millions out of the taxpayers pocket.

I know you think that social support is supposed to be a personal choice via donation, and that anything does anything more efficiently than the government, but certainly it doesn't cost tax payers millions of dollars to give that man 50. I know even you can't be THAT bad at math.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Directly handing out cash...should be illegal I would think.

Isn't it illegal? That seems like directly buying votes to me.

 

[Clevinger]

Their mental capacity isn't what it was when they were in their 20s and 30s.

They're also much less likely to be hired than younger counterparts.

 

[KtSlime]

And, your stimulus dollars ar work - for Chinese firms: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-...513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944

Apparently we have a shortage of welders...?

Kosmo thought process:

I think the stimulus is wrong, so I will support it with an 'argument' to sound fair.

If the contract went to a US firm: The US should have shopped around more, this chinese firm had a much better deal and could have saved millions!

If the contract went to a Chinese firm: The US isn't stimulating the US economy, it's stimulating the Chinese one!

 

[Oblivion]

I just don't understand how anyone could think that privatization wouldn't kill its effectiveness. Maybe the private sector could streamline it a bit, save some money here or there, change some rules so it is serving less people with maybe equivalent or slightly worse service. But I think all of those aspects will be nullified when you consider they would be doing it to try and turn a profit for share holders in the company, and that there will be competition which for things like insurance make no sense. And if there are provisions to allow people to not pay into it, then the former tax, which is now a premium, could go up since less people are paying into it - and a lot less if there are 3 or 4 different 'SS' providers.

Could SS be improved, sure, no doubt. Is the republican platform of privatization the way to do it? No fucking way.

Yeah that's what's really weird about how we're even giving the GOP speaking time with their privatization ideas. For the Ryan plan they say that they want to "transition" people into the program. People who are already on medicare and those that are 55 and older will have their benefits kept. Everyone under will go on vouchers. Even if you ignore whether the idea of a voucher is a good idea or not, one big question remains: How the hell are current beneficiaries going to KEEP their same benefits when workers will no longer be paying into the system?! Why hasn't anyone brought this up?

 

[The Librarian]

Kosmo thought process:

I think the stimulus is wrong, so I will support it with an 'argument' to sound fair.

If the contract went to a US firm: The US should have shopped around more, this chinese firm had a much better deal and could have saved millions!

If the contract went to a Chinese firm: The US isn't stimulating the US economy, it's stimulating the Chinese one!

...

Kosmo has a thought process?

 

[A27_StarWolf]

...

Kosmo has a thought process?

Any thought process is better than a snarky attitude.

That pisses me off too, we should be stimulating our own economy, not having Chinese firms come over and do this.

 

[KtSlime]

Any thought process is better than a snarky attitude.

That pisses me off too, we should be stimulating our own economy, not having Chinese firms come over and do this.

We are in a world economy, whether you like it or not. Capitalism usually goes for the cheapest method possible. Our government was just fulfilling its pursuit of the American ideal, you won't fault them for being America loving capitalists like Kosmo did, will you?

...

Kosmo has a thought process?

Headline regurgitation process?

 

[RDreamer]

This is a great article.

This is pretty much what I've been saying for a long time:

But Hanauer says the economy is like an ecosystem and that its lifeblood is the spending power of the middle class, not people like him. He says business people spend their time fundamentally on two things: creating sales and cost containment. Or, as he puts it, "how to not create jobs."

"The fewer jobs you can create, for the revenue you create, the more profit you make," Hanauer says. "The only time that businesses create jobs is when middle-class consumers essentially put a gun to our heads, in the form of orders for products that we can't make ourselves, and then we hire people and create jobs."

 

[A27_StarWolf]

We are in a world economy, whether you like it or not. Capitalism usually goes for the cheapest method possible. Our government was just fulfilling its pursuit of the American ideal, you won't fault them for being America loving capitalists like Kosmo did, will you?



Headline regurgitation process?

of course we are in a world economy, but we should do everything we can to get back on our feet at the moment. I think the people should know where there money is going, don't you?

 

[ToxicAdam]

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll in South Carolina shows Romney leading with 37%, followed by Ron Paul at Rick Santorum at 16% and Newt Gingrich dropping back to 16%.

A New Frontier Strategy poll shows Romney leading with 32%, followed by Gingrich at 23%, Santorum at 14%, Paul at 10%, Perry at 6% and Huntsman at 4%.

...

 

[The Librarian]

...

Is that from this same poll?
https://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight/status/158312527988670464

 

[Oblivion]

For anyone that thought Cain being black would give him an edge against Obama with black voters:

Ahead of tonight’s Republican debate some conservatives might be thinking that Herman Cain could bring in some African American voters, but according to PPP survey of South Carolina, Obama destroys Cain with African American voters, 93%-4%.

PPP tested the idea that Herman Cain would be popular with African-Americans in their latest South Carolina poll. The pollster found that Cain had only a 12% approval rating with African Americans and a 52% disapproval rating.

Overall, Cain is a relative unknown in the state. He has a 26% favorable rating, a 35% unfavorable rating, and 39% were not sure. Obama beats Cain 43%-40% head to head, but it is clear that most of that support is coming from white male Republicans. (Cain’s favorability with women in the state is only 21%).

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-cain-african-american

 

[ToxicAdam]

Yea, looks like that was their methodolgy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...mpaign-polltre80d0u4-20120114,0,4642588.story

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online from January 10-13 with a sample of 995 South Carolina registered voters. It included 398 Republicans and 380 Democrats.

Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online surveys but this poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 5 percentage points for Republicans and 3.4 percentage points for all voters.

Here's a link for the second one:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...mitt-leads-jobsfocused-sc-primary-110872.html


--- // ---

 

[KtSlime]

of course we are in a world economy, but we should do everything we can to get back on our feet at the moment. I think the people should know where there money is going, don't you?

I think they kind of do know where it is going, it's all public records. BTW, some of that money is going to petroleum we get from some middle eastern countries, electronics made in Korea and China, metals from Africa and South America, even wood from Canada!

BTW, I believe both of your favorite candidates would be for this as well (well, not the stimulus package, but the free trade with China). Newt has a long history of supporting free trade with China and is against protectionism, my guess is Huntsman - who was ambassador to China, and is a Republican - has a similar view.

I'm not a big supporter of protectionism, and while it would be nice if an US firm got the contract, I understand that I live in the real world, and that the firm that offers the best deal wins the contract.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't know anything about this but am interested. Where does that money go? Not looking for a debate just want to learn more about this, maybe there's no real reason for me to be whining. All I know is what it says on the check every week but I'm sure there's much more to it than that.

The money you give to the government as taxes gets destroyed. The government is the creator of all money. When you give it money as taxes, it is just collecting what it has already created and spent and can create again at will. In the monetary system we have, money doesn't exist "out there." It exists solely by fiat of the government. It is a social accounting system that the government, because of its power to spend (create money) and tax (destroy money), ultimately manages.

I think complaining about regressive taxation is perfectly valid and don't consider it whining at all. The government has to tax, for a couple reasons. First, to ensure that the otherwise worthless money it creates is accepted and used. And, second, to regulate inflation when necessary. But because it creates money itself, it doesn't ever have to tax for the distinct purpose of fiscally funding its own operations (including administering the social security program). So the questions of what the government spends and what the government taxes are completely separate. We can therefore advocate both a robust social security program and also repeal of the payroll tax (or any modification thereof).

 

[RustyNails]

I'M kinda with with angry fork on SS. For people who can save their money and have long term goals, fed gov saving their money for them is redundant. For me i'd take the extra savings and put them in bank or use it wisely and this is why i opted out of my employers health insurance plan. Right now i dont have health insurance but i'm saving hundreds of dollars. I gotta take risks. Sorry posting from phone.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/15/2114108/huntsman-could-bring-us-back-together.html

Never give up, never surrender.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yea, looks like that was their methodolgy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...mpaign-polltre80d0u4-20120114,0,4642588.story




Here's a link for the second one:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...mitt-leads-jobsfocused-sc-primary-110872.html


--- // ---

lol perfect pic: Gingrich not only blowing Romney up, but himself and everyone else as well

 

[jamesinclair]

Heres something funny, but typically Republican.

Remember that new Florida Governor? The massive fraud one?

And how he turned down federal high speed rail money because he opposes handouts and subsidies and such?

According to a new report, he would have taken the handout on one condition....

There was a second handout!

According to a report released Thursday, he would have accepted money for a proposed railway if the administration had given his state money for dredging ports.

The revelation came in a profile of Scott’s first year in office by Fortune magazine. Scott, who was against the proposed railway as a candidate, attempted to convince transportation officials in the Obama administration to agree to a deal that would have seen Scott accept $2.4 billion for a rail line between Tampa and Orlando in exchange for money to dredge ports in Jacksonville and Miami.

“Though he was skeptical of the project's merits, Scott had been trying to cut a deal with the Obama administration to improve the state's position,” the magazine reported. “He believed the White House badly wanted him to accept the funding to build what they hoped would become a model for a nation-spanning system of high-speed rail.

Why wasnt he hauled off to jail for this obvious attempt at bribery?

" 'You want this project done,' " the magazine reported Scott said, " 'I can tell you what I'm interested in. If you want to make it interesting to me, make it interesting to me.'

http://thehill.com/blogs/transporta...red-accepting-obama-administration-rail-money

 

[Puddles]

Better $50 out of his own pocket than millions out of the taxpayers pocket.

And, your stimulus dollars ar work - for Chinese firms: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-...513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944

Apparently we have a shortage of welders...?

What the flying fuck?

Bring these pieces of shit up on treason charges, IMO.

We are in a world economy, whether you like it or not. Capitalism usually goes for the cheapest method possible. Our government was just fulfilling its pursuit of the American ideal, you won't fault them for being America loving capitalists like Kosmo did, will you?

We're going to gloss over this because Kosmo is the one who posted it?

I know that Kosmo trolls the fuck out of this thread, but here he's bringing up an issue that should have the entire country seething with rage. We need to fire the fuck out of whichever officials decided not to go American. I'd revoke their pensions as well.

 

[Pie Lord]

lol perfect pic: Gingrich not only blowing Romney up, but himself and everyone else as well

I like this interpretation.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Colbert - now Jon Stewart PAC releases its SC Ad

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/15/mitt_romney_is_a_serial_killer.html

"As head of Bain Capital he bought companies, carved them up, and got rid of what he couldn't use. If Mitt Romney really believes 'Corporation are people, my friend,' then Mitt Romney is a serial killer."

amazing lol...what a mockery of CU