|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:19:30 GMT -5
twista-
Was merely pointing out the fact that some of these foreign pharamcies give out bogus meds and that a very subtle spelling differential such as the one I used might well be enough to shield them from any responsibility for giving out bad meds.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:30:14 GMT -5
womi seriously can you read? this is beyond silly, you rebut things i nev er even remotely posted and claim some sort of vicotry of me making your poiints NONSENSE what have the repubs done with record income? spend it and MORE yet womi claims they are conservative. while womi claims they are trying to "save" SS the FACT is they are SPENDING the surplus as fast as it comes in, a starting point for making SS solvent would obviously be to STOP stealing and spending the money as it comes in, in RECORDS amounts i might add BUT DEFICITS continue! womi you are nothing but a party shill and becoming unworthy of reading. Bill, you're very good at moving the goalposts.... but not quite as good as I am at still crossing them. You say that neither party has done anything to "save" SS; I point out that Republicans did try only to be shouted down by Democrats. Argue if you will that nothing was done, but you can't argue that no effort was made. You mention that Congress spent a "surplus'- which I guess I should point out existed only on paper and did not take 9/11 into account- under Republican control. True but, as I just pointed out, far less than the whole story. Under Republicans, you saw your Federal Tax burden fall- assuming you pay Federal taxes. Despite the tax cuts- which DID give you back more of your own money whether you recognize the fact or not- revenue to the Federal government is at record highs and the deficit is being reduced (not fast enough but that's another argument for another thread...and the speed at which it's paid of won't increase under Democrats). JFK, RWR and now GWB all knew/know that cutting taxes invariably results in increased revenue. 2 out of 3 are/were Republicans (and JFK would be a VERY Conservative Democrat- if not a Republican- these days). You mention that you deplore the fact that your children won't enjoy the benefits of SS. Well, I reply that, if Republicans who will consistently cut taxes are in office, maybe your children won't see half their income or more go to taxes and therefore have more money to invest for themselves. Now I realize that I'm challenging your worldview on a number of levels by using fact, truth and logic and that, naturally, to those whose worldview is based on emotion rather than reason, such a challenge can be a shock. Stick with me though and I promise the day will come where it all makes sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 28, 2007 21:20:22 GMT -5
womi seriously can you read? this is beyond silly, you rebut things i nev er even remotely posted and claim some sort of vicotry of me making your poiints NONSENSE what have the repubs done with record income? spend it and MORE yet womi claims they are conservative. while womi claims they are trying to "save" SS the FACT is they are SPENDING the surplus as fast as it comes in, a starting point for making SS solvent would obviously be to STOP stealing and spending the money as it comes in, in RECORDS amounts i might add BUT DEFICITS continue! womi you are nothing but a party shill and becoming unworthy of reading. Bill, you're very good at moving the goalposts.... but not quite as good as I am at still crossing them. You just displayed, for the 'umpteenth' time, the ONLY thing you're really good at W.O.M.I.! Simply,...... carrying on the 'hubris attitude' of this Administration! You are a 'party' shill, or you really are 'dick cheney'.....my guess is the latter!
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 28, 2007 23:42:33 GMT -5
twista- Was merely pointing out the fact that some of these foreign pharamcies give out bogus meds and that a very subtle spelling differential such as the one I used might well be enough to shield them from any responsibility for giving out bad meds. You know that has also been happening in our own American pharmacies recently... But they were straight counterfits with no intentional misspellings...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 9:23:05 GMT -5
law-
Are you a shill for God?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 29, 2007 9:30:36 GMT -5
womi IF you think the SS surplus is "only on paper" you dont KNOW enough to even discuss the issue!
each year the SS takes IN far more money they they pay out in benefits, that is REAL MONEY that comes in, NOT something "on paper"...then that real money is taken by congress and spent replaced by an IOU to the USA citizens...the "trust fund" exixts only on paper but the real surplus is again very REAL!
womi you do NOT challenge" my world view, YOU lack the intelligence, see these BS things you come up with i thought about long ago.....challenge me NO, AMUSE me with nonsense, YES very much!
me moving goalposts? why would I? you never cross midfield with your responses.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 29, 2007 9:42:23 GMT -5
law- Are you a shill for God? Hahahahaha,....When you answer a question with the same question to the accusations.....it confirms your guilt! We KNOW you're a 'shill'!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 29, 2007 13:41:48 GMT -5
WOMI is a shill? I thought he might be.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 15:07:30 GMT -5
each year the SS takes IN far more money they they pay out in benefits, that is REAL MONEY that comes in, NOT something "on paper"...then that real money is taken by congress and spent replaced by an IOU to the USA citizens...the "trust fund" exixts only on paper but the real surplus is again very REAL. Not questioning the validity of this statement because I know the government is always sticking their hands where they don't belong, but do you have a good source that backs up the first part of the statement? Better yet, is there any seemingly honest work done on the real future of SS if the money taken in does not get touched unless it is for SS benefits?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 16:40:07 GMT -5
There goes bill trying to move the goalposts again.
And here I go not allowing him to do so. Again.
I'm referring to the Federal revenue surplus projected during the Clinton Administration that was supposed to prove what a good steward he was with our money.
Of course, the truth is that Clinton had nothing to do with the projected surplus- he was running deficits until the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS put the brakes on spending post-1994. The only credit Clinton deserves is that he got out of the way of the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN juggenaut...and then had the cojones to try to claim credit for their work.
I was in no way referring to the SS surplus. It will cease to have an incoming surplus around 2018-2020 and will begin to run an actual deficit by 2035-2037, even with the incredible increases in revenue brought in by the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN TAX CUTS.
Goalpost returned to it's former location and yet another touchdown scored.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 16:41:47 GMT -5
law- Are you a shill for God? Hahahahaha,....When you answer a question with the same question to the accusations.....it confirms your guilt! We KNOW you're a 'shill'!!!!law- That you once again refuse to answer the question is proving very illuminating. Now I'm used to solomon using words which he has no idea what they mean- it's no surprise when he does it- but we've discussed this elsewhere and I >KNOW< you know the textbook definition of a "shill".
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 16:43:01 GMT -5
WOMI is a shill? I thought he might be. Anyone keeping score of the words solomon uses but doesn't understand? Add "shill" to that list, please. www.dictionary.com should be solomon's home page.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 29, 2007 16:50:34 GMT -5
womi from my post
"while womi claims they are trying to "save" SS the FACT is they are SPENDING the surplus as fast as it comes in, a starting point for making SS solvent would obviously be to STOP stealing and spending the money as it comes in, in RECORDS amounts i might add BUT DEFICITS continue!"
clearly i was talking about SS surpluses, the changing of topic is by YOU womi, nowhere did i mention clinton or those FALSE surpluses, i DID properly say that SS does run a real surplus each year and has been doing so for many decades, THAT money is stolen by congress and spent.
womi you scored NOTHING and i moved no goalposts...YOU mentioned the repubs trying to save SS, i pointed out they did NOT and they continued to spend the surplus as it comes in, NOW out of the blue you claim the surpluses you "mean" are the false ones from the clinton admin.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 29, 2007 16:54:30 GMT -5
just read through the thread again, NOWHERE did womi mention the clinton surplus until the recent post CHANGING the discussion.
womi, YOU change the discussion(move the goalposts) then claim scoring, AND falsely accuse me of moving goalposts.
as i said in other threads, womi you cant be serious, this is pure NONSENSE!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 18:47:14 GMT -5
Goalposts moved again:
I pointed out that Republicans at least made an attempt to shore up social security. You said they did not. In fact, including the quote directly above, you've made that erroneous claim twice.
Did President Bush or did he not advocate the partial privitization of social security so as to gain a better return for individuals and to extend the solvency of the program?
I never claimed that Republicans succeeded in the attempt; only that they had tried.
Goalposts moved back yet again. Yet another touchdown scored.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 18:59:22 GMT -5
For the record, here are my assertions in this thread:
1) That Medicare part D, while still not a good bill, isn't the disaster that it was predicted to be. More people signed up than was expected, the choices weren't as complicated as originally thought, and it hasn't cost nearly as much as predicted. One can still call it a bad idea- and I do- but let's use facts when 'dissing' it rather than emotion, mmmkay?
2) That whatever government can do, the private sector can do better (exception: war).
3) SS is broken. Breaking it was a bipartisan effort. One party- Republicans- at least tried to 'fix' it by partially privitizing it (interestingly. something bill supports or so it seems)- while the other party- Democrats- demagogued it to the point an honest debate could no longer take place.
4) Perhaps by lowering the tax burden on American workers and retirees, SS will not longer be such a bit part of making ends meet once workers retire. Conservatives are far more likely to pass tax cuts than are Liberals.
5) The reduction in the deficit is due soley to the Bush tax cuts. Bush and Republicans could have used their majority to ram through Congress spending cuts- not slowing the rate of increase but actual cuts- and he'd be on far firmer ground with Conservatives like myself. Still, half an apple pie is better than no apple pie at all.
6) Democrats will prove far worse at all of the above than Republicans have. History bears that out.
Lessee...six Talking Points and no less than four of the six are critical of Republicans.
Now who do I go to to turn in my "shill card"?
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 29, 2007 22:19:03 GMT -5
Re: Womi...
"Lessee...six Talking Points and no less than four of the six are critical of Republicans. Now who do I go to to turn in my "shill card"? "
I think you need to go down the hall and take the second left.
It's in the "Left handed compliment/criticism" department - insincerity section four. Just look for the beady eyed guy in the plaid pants with a big "W" pasted on his bottom... (Well, you asked... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 13:41:24 GMT -5
twista:
Got it.
All I had to do was follow "God's Shill" to the right office.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 30, 2007 13:45:20 GMT -5
twista: Got it. All I had to do was follow "God's Shill" to the right office. God doesn't need ANY 'shill's'...... but the the Repubs do, you 'phonies' are desperate!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 30, 2007 14:14:30 GMT -5
Whether He needs one or not, you've got the position covered.
|
|