Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
|
SVX Network Forums Live Chat! SVX or Subaru Links Old Lockers Photo Post How-To Documents Message Archive SVX Shop Search |
IRC users: |
|
#16
10-20-2009, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Quote:
That entitles him to his benefits that he has when he was Active Duty. Used to be CHAMPUS, now it's Tri-Care... Not Medicare. Just saying...
__________________
Chris SVX World Network Administrator -1993 Subaru SVX LS-L, Barcelona Red, #46, 160,000+ Miles (Sold to SomethingElse  )-2011 Toyota Sienna SE, Black, 30,000+ Miles (Swagger Wagon  )-2002 BMW R 1150R ABS, Black, 26,000+ Miles (Daily Driver  )SVX Owner from February 1997 to March 2008 SVX Online Community Member since February 1998 SVX World Network Member since February 2002, Member #520 Life is a game. Play to win. The world belongs to those who can laugh at it. 
|
|
#17
10-20-2009, 01:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Quote:
Good enough for him not to be writting his elected officials day and night asking for an end to medicare then obviously there is some benefits toward public options to Lee. That is so long as he gets it and others don't!
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
|
|
#18
10-20-2009, 07:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Prior to age 65 I was covered by TriCare and actually went to miltary doctors for my primary care and other things including any medicine needed. At age 65 I had no choice--the government makes Medicare my primary care and TriCare secondary. Also, I can not longer to to military doctors. I actually preferred the way it was before age 65.
Now dufus--how about answering that question you keep evading. ASSUME THAT MEDICARE AND SS WILL BOTH STILL BE AROUND WHEN YOU REACH RETIREMENT AGE---Are you going to turn it down after contributing for all of your working life??????????? Just answer the question!!!! Lee
__________________
SVXx2 92 SVX LS-L Silver 92 SVX LS-L Burgundy (structurally challenged with 2792 miles) 96 SVX LSi Red 92 SVX LS Pearl (Parts) 01 F150 4X4 Red (+6 with other members of the family) FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
|
|
#19
10-20-2009, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Quote:
In short, I'm not a fan of the systems that your generation provided for their childern. Greatest generation my a@@. That is unless your talking about the greatest based on greed. Still waiting for that thank you for my continued support of your medicare.
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
|
|
#20
10-21-2009, 10:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Quote:
 And Medicare could have been more solvent if the money for both systems had been managed and used ONLY for those programs. How long have you been voting or at least eligible to vote??? I suspect where you keep pointing fingers at MY generation you are pointing much of the finger at you and your generation. Anyway I suspect many on here are slightly tired of you blaming MY generation for all the ills of our country. I think the blame lies somewhere else. I believe in fiscal responsibility and abhor pork barrell spending and spending programs as intended by the Obamanation administration. I do see that you finally admit that you would take the money from Medicaire and SS. At least you are honest. Like me, you don't have to agree with a program, but if you have invested in it for years, it would be foolish not to take it. I suspect we will both get less out of it than we paid into to it or by our employer for us. And, oh yes, I was self employed for 15 years, so had to pay the full 15 percent load. This might be a good time to point out the future for self employed people---how about the 15 percent SS load and on top of that the 13 percent Obamanation (plus 13 percent paid to businesses for their portion) for a straight 28 percent tax (in reality 41 percent) BEFORE income taxes. Ain't the future great?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lee Lee
__________________
SVXx2 92 SVX LS-L Silver 92 SVX LS-L Burgundy (structurally challenged with 2792 miles) 96 SVX LSi Red 92 SVX LS Pearl (Parts) 01 F150 4X4 Red (+6 with other members of the family) FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
|
|
#21
10-21-2009, 10:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Hmmm.. Ronnie Reagan was the biggest proponent of raiding the SS and Medicare which he did to pay for what else but tax cuts. You're democratic blame is useless. Doesn't matter which party an elected official is YOUR elected official, if you were so "concerned" about it why didn't you take action 25 years ago and not vote for tax cuts?
Quote:
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
|
|
#22
10-21-2009, 10:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
How long have you been eligible to vote??
AND, let's set the record straight as to who is at fault. If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this, this is the best presentation I ever saw... Now don't be mad at old people, just remember who did this... Franklin Delano. Roosevelt 32nd. President, Democrat Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 GO TO HERE ! Our Social Security Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following: Dwight David Eisenhower 34th. President, Republican, Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. If I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress. >From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.. President, Democrat Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969 Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Answer: The Democratic Party. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) 42nd. President Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) 45th. Vice President Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .... James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter) 39th President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (JIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! .. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! Thomas Jefferson 3rd. President, Democrat Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809 "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson Lee
__________________
SVXx2 92 SVX LS-L Silver 92 SVX LS-L Burgundy (structurally challenged with 2792 miles) 96 SVX LSi Red 92 SVX LS Pearl (Parts) 01 F150 4X4 Red (+6 with other members of the family) FREEDOM IS NOT FREE Last edited by lhopp77; 10-21-2009 at 10:53 AM.
|
|
#23
10-21-2009, 01:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Your "facts" don't spell the real story (although that would mean your wrong). Under Ronnie was the first time that very large sums of money were taken. Prior to that it was used as a method of last resort (sort of like a rainy day fund).
As I remember telling you several times I was not eligible to vote when George H. Bush last ran for president. FYI I'm not mad at all. I just look at the world through reality not some warped sense of entitlement. Facts are facts. What did you do to stop all this from happening in the first place? That is the real question. Quote:
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
|
|
#24
10-21-2009, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Quote:
A chain letter has been making the rounds invites people to watch an alarming sounding video of Lou Dobbs on CNN about an immigration bill. The truth is, regardless how acurate or inaccurate his description of the provisions of the the bill he talks is, the video is from June 2007 and the bill is long dead. It never became law. This YouTube link takes you to the same video, with an upload date of June 25, 2007. Bill S. 1348 ("Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007" or "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007") died in June 2007 due to lack of support in Congress. Yes, that's more than a year and a half before Barack Obama became President of the USA. President George W. Bush expressed his "disappointment" at lawmakers failing to pass a bill. Please review: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (Wikipedia) Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat (cnn.com) Here's the link: http://www.joewein.net/hoax/hoax-lou...nesty-bill.htm
|
|
#25
10-21-2009, 03:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Just some points to think over...
1: Under the US Constitution, the US House of Representatives is REQUIRED to be the place where all monetary legislation starts. That would include ALL budgetary matters, including establishment of taxes, funding government programs, and moving money from accounts to the general fund. 1b. The democrats controlled the US Congress for about 40 years, up until 1994. 2: Ronald Reagan was a proponent of tax cuts. His proposal to cut the top marginal tax rate from above the 90% range, down to 28%.... had the net effect of DOUBLING federal tax revenue, due to private sector economic growth, which LESSENED the need to raid social security funds for general budgetary operations. Yet the CONGRESS still did it. RR's track record was not in support of such activity, but the POTUS is not a law maker, or at least SHOULDN'T be. You can't just cut congress out of the procedure. The president can only propose his idea of an agenda, and play around with political games, and then veto legislation. But congress can play it's own political power games, and get legislation past the president's veto pen by bundling it in omnibus bills, and other things that would be politically unwise to "throw down" on. Ronald Reagan was probably the least "go along to get along" of the presidents in the 20th century, and so-far in the 21st. The Bush presidents were more likely to play the game, and go along. The democrat presidents from Johnson's proposal of the Great Society, Carter's proposal of the Community Reinvestment act, and other general incompetence, and Clinton's furthering of social domestic policies were not in any way limiting government, nor was it their intent to limit government. The CONGRESS, aside from a short time in the mid-90s, was fine to go along with that, and spend taxpayer dollars to buy any votes they could find, and continue their own expansionist agenda items. Even under Republican Party leadership, after the novelty wore off, fell back into the same old ways, and the Dems have gotten back up to break-neck speed since taking the congress back. G.W. Bush went along to get along FAR too much in his second term, and the budget skyrocketed. He refused to rock the boat, and fight the congress, so TARP and bail outs became his policy as well. Not conservative at all. Compassionate Conservatism was a fallacy. All compassion, no conservative. Besides, once conservatism is examined more than sound-byte deep, conservatism IS inherently compassionate to the individual, by promoting that individual's liberty, rather than their subjugation, so the adjective is redundant, and was a code-word. It was used to pass prescription drugs, and education, and bigger budgets for everything. The Dems were only pissed off because of the "R" by Bush's name, so they couldn't take full credit for the policies themselves... because "D"s must always hate "R"s, and vice versa. The entitlements and programs, aside from maybe faith-based initiatives, were right up their alley.... but certainly not my alley, as a conservative. I don't even think he should have given money to faith based organizations... it is too problematic with government oversight of taxpayer money distribution... and it STILL isn't fiscally conservative. I can give to a faith based charity my own self, thanks. Especially if the government would deign to let me keep more of my earnings. And now in the last 10 months... the president is acting more as a chief legislator and policy maker, than a chief executive. He is blaming his predecessor for everything, while he himself was in congress prior to his election, and did NOTHING to quell what he now decries. And government spending has left the whole of American History behind. He, and the congress in his pocket, have accrued more debt than the entire history of the US Federal government before his inauguration. This whole mess has just been shoved into "Ludicrous Speed," to quote the movie Spaceballs. Complaining about Ronald Reagan's tax cuts hardly seems appropriate with the kind of spending, deficit, debt, and unfunded liability that is looking down the barrel, with the US taxpayer from now until generations yet unborn, are squarely in it's sights, and the hammer is being cocked.
__________________
"What you plan, and what actually happens ain't exactly ever been similar..." ------------ 1992 Claret SVX. Rescued from certain destruction, and still on the road, where it belongs. Waiting for a bit of a makeover, when I can afford it. 2005 Garnet Red Pearl Legacy GT Limited 5-speed. - The late great Subaru sport touring sedan. 1999 Classic Red Miata, Preferred equipment package 5-speed. Fun, fun, fun, in the Sun, sun, sun. Last edited by BoxerFanatic; 10-21-2009 at 03:40 PM.
|
|
#26
10-21-2009, 04:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
Somebody once said "The trouble with Presidents is that nobody that wants the job is fit for the job". I tried searching, but couldn't find the source. Who but a megalomaniac would go to all that trouble to get the worst job on earth? So as it stands, I've never seen a presidential candidate that I would vote for in my adult life. I'm a conservative in the old fashioned sense, small government and low spending. You can't show me a single politician in office now who would fight to limit their own power, or cut their pay. The problem isn't what letter is next to their name, but the whole business culture they exist in.
If republicans want my vote they need to allow gay marriage and decriminalize marajuana. Not because those issues affect me personally, but because what "Conservative" wants the gov't to control who gets married, and what they do in their own home? Conservative Wyoming was the first state to allow women to vote and interracial marriage. Conservative Berry Goldwater spent years trying to decriminalize addiction. Republicans now are usually the first to revoke people's rights and expand government involvement in your life. Get over the letters next to names. They're all the same thieving dirtbags trying to control your life, just with different color ties. /political rant out.
__________________
'92 LS-L "Bandit" #362 formerly dark teal, repainted by prev owner Mods: ECUTune 2v7f, Earthworm bushings, Pioneer DVD/Bluetooth phone, Infinity Reference all around, tint, 17" wheels, custom seat belt computer, velcro visor Buying parts is like car payments. Someday she'll be all mine.
|
|
#27
10-21-2009, 05:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
That first paragraph was good.
The second one, isn't conservative. It is libertarian. the fact is, a marriage is considered a legal contract, as well as a more social or even theological construct. The theological construct and social foundation of marriage came millenia before the legal contract terms, though, and that is where the definition is derived from. The law has to define who is elligible to enter into that legal contract, called marriage. The government would have to refuse to recognize ANY marraige, and leave it entirely to the churches. (even if you are an athiest, agnostic, or "church of myself" member.) Otherwise, they are leveraging current law against millenia of historical context, just for the sake of political correctness, and to mollify a small minority. And the fact is, they are talking about equating a lifestyle partnership with the term marriage, which is a familial, and progeny-generating arrangement upon which the institutions of society are built, and have been since the dawn of mankind. It isn't as though a legal definition change now can just change the structure of society, or the history of civilization. A conservative does not want to control what goes on in other people's homes. A conservative wants to CONSERVE the definitions and institutions upon which a free society is built, and maintains order. Conserving an institution means defining an institution. Some people don't like being left out of the definition, rather than creating their own separate definition of a different institution. de-criminalizing controlled substances is a delicate issue. But a true libertarian society that can de-criminalize harmful activities, has to then have the follow through of not taxing Peter to pay Paul, when Paul is strung out and can't hold down a job, or pay the rent. You have to be able to walk by, and say "sucks to be you." We aren't in that libertarian society. So, CONSERVATION of societal norms, and discouraging self-abusive behavior, means regulating it. Perhaps not as much, or differently than we currently do, but we don't have the follow through to allow people the liberty to destroy themselves like that. They become burdens on their fellow citizens, and that is progressive socialist, not libertarian. As we can plainly see in current events. Republicans are not synonymous with conservatism anymore. They didn't like Goldwater. They barely liked Reagan, and lately have been throwing Reagan under the bus, saying that his policies are old, and out of touch... and that Reps should be Dem-Lite, and there is where I agree with you again, they are all meddlesome. There is no real conservative candidate, and our country is in absolutely no shape to handle a truly libertarian candidate. We just keep getting Dem and Dem-lite with an "R"... And some of us out here in the real world struggle to know who to trust at all. BTW, what you say about presidents... is even more true about tyrants. The only ones who rise to power, are the ones lawless enough to defy the tyrannical rules, and ruthless enough to climb to the top of other corrupt tyrants. And then they rule they way they rose to power. Big surprise. Take a look at 20th century history alone. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tze Tung, Mussolini, Hussein, Khaddafi, Chavez, Ortega, Castro, Guevarra, Mugabe, ... and a whole list of others who have killed hundreds of millions of people between them, and subjected even more under their boots. A law abiding citizen doesn't exactly fit that mold, either, and that is what we have historically fought against. Now our leadership seems to be interested in possibly joining that club a little bit.
__________________
"What you plan, and what actually happens ain't exactly ever been similar..." ------------ 1992 Claret SVX. Rescued from certain destruction, and still on the road, where it belongs. Waiting for a bit of a makeover, when I can afford it. 2005 Garnet Red Pearl Legacy GT Limited 5-speed. - The late great Subaru sport touring sedan. 1999 Classic Red Miata, Preferred equipment package 5-speed. Fun, fun, fun, in the Sun, sun, sun. Last edited by BoxerFanatic; 10-21-2009 at 05:26 PM.
|
|
#28
11-06-2009, 11:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Those Who Wanted "Change"??
Oh, what they will say to get elected in contrast to what they do AFTER elected.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7...layer_embedded Isn't this the same guy that won't even provide the White House visitors list?? Lee
__________________
SVXx2 92 SVX LS-L Silver 92 SVX LS-L Burgundy (structurally challenged with 2792 miles) 96 SVX LSi Red 92 SVX LS Pearl (Parts) 01 F150 4X4 Red (+6 with other members of the family) FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
|
|
#29
11-23-2009, 12:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: More Obamanation and Liberal Democrats
__________________
Gene and Ben 1992 SVX LS AWD 110K - Liquid Silver 1994 SVX LSi AWD 128K - White Pearl (daily driver) 1994 SVX LSi AWD 95K - Emerald Pearl (sold) 1992 SVX LS-L AWD 115K - Dark Teal 4.44 swap (sold)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
