patrick.net

tatupu70 says

I doubt it. So, if someone did a poor job sweeping, do you still pay them?

So you think the better solution is to pay people that are able to work to do nothing but sit around and get fat off free hand outs?

RayAmerica says

I have paid both sides of SS for 30 years being that I have been self employed. Call it what you want, it is money that I earned and paid into the system. Having said that, I am very well situated and quite frankly, never believed it would be there for me when it was time to qualify for payments, so no, I don’t need to “fall back” on it, but when the time comes, if MY money is there, I will collect it.

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to "collect" on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year? I think you don't understand how insurance works. There is no "savings". Money paid into it that year, is paid out that year. You have the idea you are owed something from an account, which just indicates your fundamental misunderstanding.

Vicente says

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect” on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?

Uh, what makes you get "car insurance" and Social Security confused as being the same? SS collects, by force, earned income that it applies to SS with the PROMISE to pay back to you in installments at the time of your retirement. Car insurance, the last I checked, is completely voluntary (you aren't forced to drive a car) and is not part of the government nor is it a supplemental retirement system. Before you post anything further, take a few deep breaths and count to ten. If you are still feeling silly enough to continue to post such dribble, go for it.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect” on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?

Uh, what makes you get “car insurance” and Social Security confused as being the same?

Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you apparently refer to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest. In point of fact, there is no investing going on. Are you incapable of comprehending this, or do you just refuse to acknowledge your error?

I have no need to accost the AARP at my coffee shop. If the USA went bankrupt tomorrow, they'd all be sputtering into their coffee, veins popping, and firing up their Medicare-funded scooters to ride on Washington. They'd be as wrong about it as you, as far as being something they are "owed" in my book.

If Mutual of Omaha went totally Tango Uniform, and failed to pay my claim tomorrow, what would be my recourse? Well I can chase after the underwriters and what remains of the company. "What's my 30 years of payments been for??!! This is an outrage!" I would thunder uselessly. Maybe I'd get a slice after lawyering, maybe not. The insurance game is tricky isn't it?

Vicente says

Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you keep mistakenly referring to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest.

I never said I "invested money" in SS. I did say I was forced (in my case paying both sides) to contribute MY money into the system. I never said I deserved "it all back out with interest." I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I've paid into it with MY MONEY. Somehow you got all that confused with car insurance. Apparently you confused your little friend the Duckie Dude too. LOL !!

RayAmerica says

I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I’ve paid into it with MY MONEY.

If enough civic-minded people like you refuse their SS checks, then they'll be forced to either make the program optional or close it down entirely.

shrekgrinch says

Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.

Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I've been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people's money.

RayAmerica says

shrekgrinch says

Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.

Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I’ve been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people’s money.

Actually, it's really more an excellent example of a strawman argument. Bravo Shrek. Next you should try for an ad hominem argument. Ray will certainly cheer you on again...

RayAmerica says

he Dumocrats will lose the House and possibly even the Senate.

I think t's good that you enjoy talking about this as much now as possible. You know, just in case it doesn't happen.

Counting your chickens before they are hatched. And those expectations are exactly what I want to hear from everyone before the actual vote takes place.

I seem to remember Liberals going ballistic over Cheney and the evil Halliburton profiteering off the wars in the Middle East. Funny thing. Obama has been el Presidente` for almost two years and guess what? Halliburton is still in full operation over there. And you dupes actually believed all that bunk about "change." LOL

Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO .... they're just plain cheap.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

RayAmerica says

Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO …. they’re just plain cheap.

Yea, with both ours and other people's money. I do appreciate all that you give, and intend to collect as much of it as possible...

RayAmerica says

Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO …. they’re just plain cheap.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

It's fascinating to me that right-wing expend so VERY much blogosphere patting themselves on the back over this. I've donated time in charitable causes, and don't recall that Limbots particularly dominated. People I suppose were there to GIVE and not to break their arms patting themselves on the back about how "right" their worldview was.

Every article I dig for on this, is in about the same timeframe, and all circle back to John Stossel and Athur Brooks for proof, and naught else. I see no evidence this "fact" has been verified by other researchers. Arthur Brooks, "author and researcher", who does he work for? the American Enterprise Institute. And who are they? A conservative think tank. I'm not surprised he proved exactly what he set out to. He was so good at spinning his book into gold, that in 2009 he was made AEI President.

What you have there, is a circle jerk.

shrekgrinch says

What are you talking about? Everything I just said is FACTUALLY true.
Government can enslave people (draft) or rob people (taxation or worse) with impunity because when government does it, it is seen as ‘legitimate’. Or, to put it another way, government just outlaws those activities when someone(s) OTHER than the government does it. Organized crime mobs don’t like competition, after all.
But whether it is spun or not as ‘legitimate’ doesn’t change the fact that it is still enslaving and robbing people. Please prove otherwise.

What are you talking about?? I made no reference of any post that said anything like that. I'll refresh your memory. Here's an example of Shrek's strawman again:

shrekgrinch says

Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place.

And again:

shrekgrinch says

And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way

Here's a hint for you--any time that you post what liberals think or what liberals consider, it's probably a strawman.

shrekgrinch says

So yes, I know perfectly what it means.

So, you use strawman arguments on purpose then? Obviously you know what they are, yet you continue to use them. I can draw no other conclusion.

To me that indicates that you don't really have truth on your side. Otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to make your point...

shrekgrinch says

From Liberals, the charge means, “When you have us on the ropes, we pull a straw man argument via accusing you of doing it.” So yes, I know perfectly what it means.

You're making way too much sense for them to handle. The next silly tactic they'll use is calling you a "troll."

RayAmerica says

You’re making way too much sense for them to handle. The next silly tactic they’ll use is calling you a “troll.”

Actually, shrek beat me to it Ray. On another thread he accused me of being a troll. You're right about one thing though--it is a silly tactic.

shrekgrinch says

Uh, no. I just said I know that those arguments are. How on earth does that translate as ’so you use strawman arguments on purpose then’?

Well, it's pretty simple. If you know what strawman arguments are and continue to use them, then you are using them on purpose. Not sure how you can't understand something so simple

if the majority feel the system isn't serving them, they will vote for a new social contract. The only theft is the use of finacial advantage to coerce most folks to accept a system where the revenue they create is skimmed off by those who own the capital, and if we are paid enough to raise our children we should bow and scrape and revere our generous benefactors because of all their virtuous investment and nation building

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

Very interesting Nomograph. I only recently heard about this program. Where did you find the numbers?

Nomograph says

MILLIONS

Nomograph says

Total $2,824,256

Wow! Like really really Wow!! Almost $3 MILLION (not counting the 11 cents)! MILLIONS!! Duh, what we need is TRILLIONS. Come on Libtoids .... losen up your dainty little purse strings and GIVE until it HURTS!

I think that amount might just about cover the bailout money that maybe just one of the republican governors has taken after saying they never would do such a thing...

According to all unverifiable sources available to me, the Official Give Meter for the Liberals of Patrick.net officially stands at ZERO. Why am I not surprised?

elvis says

The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.

pretty much how I see it too

Honest Abe says

Liberals however, want to FORCE others to donate to the cause THEY deem worthy…and its not a option.

I don't recall being asked if it was optional for me, to pay for various wars we've engaged in recently. Were those leaders commies? Were those "worthy causes" so worthy? I lose track.

Bap33 says

elvis says

The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.

pretty much how I see it too

As a liberal, relatively speaking (I know of republicans in the 70s that were more liberal than I am), I can try to give you the other point of view. It's this: markets work, matching up supply and demand. But this does not work with charity, or "a thousand points of light." I would say that liberals know themselves well enough to know that if you essentially bill me for things like veterans benefits, food stamps, and all the countless essential services such as police, teachers, care for poor disabled people, I will pay it. But left to my own devices I will not give enough to pay my share of all of these.

Also, I find the risk of dependency, which may be significant, to be much more than offset by the sort of neutral feel of receiving government help, as opposed to charity, in cases such as food stamps.

marcus says

elvis says

The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.

pretty much how I see it too

This is nothing more than a transparent justification for selfishness and greed. Liberals are just intelligent enough to understand that.

well ... the base reason for creating a mass governing body is common protection through shared resources (from national level to local level). After protection is complete, then all those fun welfare programs can be started. It just can't be done the other way around. Right?

The bailout thing is welfare. Bush was a liberal spender.
SSI is welfare when accessed by non-payer-iners
free lunch is welfare
Section 8 is welfare
sex change pills for prisoners is welfare
ACLU is unAmerican
NOW hates conservative women
NAACP hates conservative CP's
Nobody ever voted for EPA, IRS, or NEA

Bap33 says

After protection is complete, then all those fun welfare programs can be started.

Fabulous! MediCare is welfare, thus I should be able to opt out of paying for it. Alrighty, because I'd REALLY like to stop paying for the Teabaggers favorite ride:

larrypatrickmaloney says

As we all know now, all our tax money goes to Liberals, and their political friends, and their union friends.

That's baloney Maloney.

Try corporate welfare. Tax cuts for the rich. Haliburton. Questionable wars. Building fake economies built on financial services fees, and credit (which can be traced back to "don't worry be happy, daddy will take care of you" Reagan era). And don't forget paying the interest on the debt that the borrow and spend republicans did in the past 30 years, and the gullible fools who actually bought the whole trickle down philosophy behind all of the "deficits don't matter," thinking of the starve the beast crowd. Hey, let's cut taxes all the way to zero, and government revenues will go to infinity !! It's trickle down economics, gee.

I love you "optional tax" guys.

You end up like that guy whose house burned down, and endangered neighbor property to boot:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Let's make paying for military optional, you jump right on that eh? I'll agree to pay my Coast Guard fee and that's about it.

larrypatrickmaloney says

PS: My writing is all my own.

I wouldn't know where to start. Definitely not a "big picture" guy. It is interesting, the different things that we all see to be great about this country.

Freedom isn't that great if you are on the north pole, or the middle of a jungle, or in hell for that matter. Freedom alone doesn't do it. Okay. I get your point. You don't think that our government has served you. I feel the same way sometimes. Just not to the point where I want to stop paying for it.

RayAmerica says

According to all unverifiable sources available to me, the Official Give Meter for the Liberals of Patrick.net officially stands at ZERO. Why am I not surprised?

Geez rayray, I gave a buck to a guy holding a sign that said, "why lie? I need a beer." I thought it was you - yet you don't count that contribution?

You're not getting another beer outta me.

the plan is never to pay the national debt, only service it ponzi style in perpetuity. Inflation is the "taxation" safety valve in case of a need to pay for big shotfalls and screw ups, which is why the wealthy always harp on the size of the debt. simple and effective. the people should therefore fight for their entitlements. only logical

Is there a line item in the 1099 that says something like "additional voluntary donations"? Thats the line the democrats should liberally fill in and contribute to their (bleeding) hearts content...opposed to working so hard to create laws FORCING everyone else to make donations to THEIR pet projects, or to those things THEY deem worthy.

I believe we should add a line on the tax forms and voter registration for "Tea Partier". These people will be denied all government services henceforth, in exchange for not paying taxes. They will only receive "ID" cards not driver licenses, and a special passport class that indicates they receive no assistance abroad if they do some dumbass thing. The reclamation of mobility scooters is an obvious one, but in general they'd need something like a "do not render aid" bracelet so we don't make the mistake of offering them assistance in emergency. The bootstrappy must help themselves.

Vicente says

I believe we should add a line on the tax forms and voter registration for “Tea Partier”. These people will be denied all government services henceforth, in exchange for not paying taxes.

No one in their right mind is advocating "no government." What thinking people are advocating is LIMITED government. Somehow, people like you and the Duck just can't seem to grasp that idea. No wonder the Founding Fathers are scorned on this site.

RayAmerica says

No wonder the Founding Fathers are scorned on this site.

Bad Logic.

You quote the founding fathers--->you are scorned. This does not imply that the founding fathers are scorned.

Marcus, the founding fathers may not actually be scorned on this site. Its just that their policies are continually being eroded by politicians.