Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real

From: Reuben Hick (reubenhick_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:52:58 GMT

"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:I3BvJH.Ft@news.boeing.com...
>
> "Reuben Hick" <reubenhick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:224Zc.7622$eE.1274@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > "ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ch2hgd$34j$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> >
> > > 3 trillion in deficits, now that's real conservatism! roflmmfao
> >
> > Great, then you agree with me that we need to cut off the gravy train to
> > welfare deadbeats
>
> And my first deadbeat would be
>
> Wait a second. Welfare? We just gave back a scadillion to some fairly well
> off folks...

Repeat after me: "It isn't the Government's Money."

Honest people normally "earn" money. Taxes are what is confiscated from
them. When one party takes money from the earnings of another, we normally
call that "theft". When it is done under duress we call it "robbery". When
the party that does the taking of another's earnings under the threat of
violence and incarceration is called "government" how is it that you call it
"give back" when they don't steal as much as they did the year before? If
an armed robber only stole half the contents of your wallet rather than then
entire contents of your wallet, would you consider yourself evil and greedy
because he "gave back" half your money?

Now if you truly believe that it is the government's money, then you show
yourself to be a marxist who believes that all people are wards of the
State. Where no man ownes himself, yet owes his entire existance to the
State. Traditionally we have called that person a "slave". Are you an
advocate of global slavery? When a man owns himself, then the fruit of
his labors are his, not the government's. Thus if the fruit of his labor
are his, then when the government decides not to seize as much as they did
the previous year, it simply means that the man got to keep more of that
which was his in the first place. There is no "giving back" when it wasn't
even the government's in the first place.

> ...because we didn't need the money

Spoken like a true thief. The Robber sees nothing wrong with taking from
another person as long as the Robber perceives a personal "need" for
someone else's property.

> and now you are telling me we
> did?

Let me get this straight. You consider it wrong for a wise and prudent
person who works hard and makes sound financial decisions to keep a certain
percentage of what they have rightfully and lawfully earned. You consider
it noble for others who have squandered their lives and their abilities such
where they now lay claim on the Producer's assets. And it is the epitome
of morality and virtue for this Taker, to be so lazy and cowardly that they
are not willing to take the money from the Producer themselves, that they
will appoint surrogate professional thieves to do the stealing for them and
give them pennies on the dollar of that which was stolen.

> And don't I recall that most of that money goes to the deadbeats that
> were forced to put their life savings into Social Security...

At least your recognize that the government uses "force" in order to make
people participate in immoral and corrupt Panzi schemes that are really
poorly formed masks for marxist income redistribution.

But here is where your logic continuts to break down. Social Security is
not a "tax", it is a compulsory "insurance premium". Your beloved
socialist president FDR concocted that scheme so that future generations of
socialists will have something to simultaneously bribe and scare recipients
with. It is interesting to note that government employees in Galveston,
TX took advantage of the opt-out program such where they were removed from
the SSI program and were able to manage their own retirement accounts.
Many of the retirees are making more off their non-SSI retirement packages
than they were earning when they were on the city payroll.

That could have been our future, but you socialists preferred to beat down
the Producers for the benefit of the Takers.

> so it could be
> borrowed by the government years and years ago to do stuff our congressmen
> agreed needed to be done just ever so much back then, so they can now hand
> it out however they wish, and complain that we don't have enough money?

Your sentences are getting to be as convoluted as mine. But in trying to
parse that last statement I feel your pain, but your wounds are
self-inflicted. Instead of bitching about how the government isn't
falling lock-step with every thought, wish or demand that runs through your
head, you should join the rest of us who are in support of the work of
people like Newt Gingrich and the current US president and move the country
away from a government "managed" retirement "system" and into individually
managed retirement accounts ala The City of Galveston.

> This is a pyramid scheme I think, and the head schemer is trying to get
you to
> buy in.

Exactly. And that is why you should support George 'W' Bush and the GOP
effort to ween the US off this "pyramid scheme" as you have so accurately
described it. Forget the Libertine Party, they will never have the numbers
to get this to work, and the Demoncat party is the original authors of the
Social Security Scheme, so it is in their best interest to keep it as
bankrupt as possible. Threats of bankrupcy allow them to continue to
pillage the Producers for the benefit of the Takers.

> The biggest gravy train you have in front of you is not your poor
> deadbeat,

Statistically speaking, the "poor deadbeat" is on the "biggest gravy train".
The Social Security Panzi Scheme is something that we all pay into with the
expectation of someday receiving a payout. The welfare system is just raw
wealth transfer from Producers to Takers. The Takers, by definition,
deadbeats who refuse to take care of themselves and expect the world to
tighten their belt so that they can expand theirs.

Interestingly, the Social Security laws do not require the administrators
(read: your government) to actually make do on the so-called benefits. At
any time, Congress can stop the whole process and there is no legal
obligation for them to pass on one penny to those who may have forfeited an
entire lifetime of "premiums" into this insurance scam.

If you want to bash 'W' on mishandling the Social Security System then use
some facts. The present adminstration is desiring to expand SSI to benefit
illegal aliens from Mexico. In the US, a citizen is require to work 40
quarters before being eligible for receiving benefits. An illegal alien
from Mexico, under the current proposal, may use fraudulent documents as
evidence of working only ten quarters before being eligible to receive
lifetime benefits that can just as easily be received in their own country.
Thus, an illegal alien can forge up some documents that basically state that
he has been working in the US for two and one half years, and then can march
up to the SSI office, just prior to deportation, and provide them with this
"evidence" and his hometown address in Mexico, and expect to receive an SSI
check every month for the rest of his life - courtesy you and the Producers
here in the US.

> it's your scadillion little companies obtaining parts of the
> government grants your congressman brings back to show he is working for
you
> so you will reelect him.

Its also those scadillion little companies that employ the vast majority of
Americans, provide goods and services to Americans, and raise the standard
of living for the entire world.

If they get to keep a little bit more of their profits, then I am all for
it. Why do you begrudge people who actually earn their food, clothing and
housing, yet wring your hands over ne're do wells who pay back our
"investment" in them with lowered standards, crime and filth?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Official Why Zarqawi and why now? thread
    ... If small amounts were invested instead, under the control of the individual, would that not be money invested and not spent? ... Here is a thought experiment for you William related to the so-call social security lockbox. ... Does the second reality change one bit the obligations of the federal government regarding the financial resources of the government and it's ability to pay what is promised to the intended recipients and the ultimate cost of these obligations to the population at large? ... If the social security system did not exist, the national debt would still be exactly the same, because the bonds now held by the SS Trust Fund would be held by the public instead. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT - Thank you suckers
    ... Why are you investing your own money privately? ... partial privatization of Social Security plan? ... 5% of their money back and let them invest it privately. ... Saving for retirement is a long-term process. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Refresher Course on Social Security
    ... this is based on the simple fact that social security does not have the money to meet the promises it made, and someone at some future time is going to pay the price. ... If we take that as a given, then it becomes a matter of what is the best way, with the least amount of pain to both the people who contribute to the plan, and those who will eventually become the beneficiaries of the plan. ... Government, Wall Street, or some combination thereof? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: AFTERNOON SENSITIVITY
    ... You mean returning some portion of the money to the children that the ... I'm glad that sanity blocked King George II from privatizing Social Security. ... If you were honest, you would be forced to admit that Tim Daneliuk is entirely correct, that if instead of structuring Social Security as it is, FDR had proposed a government overseen and guaranteed investment bank instead. ... A classic illustration of the principle that government programs that substitute for personal responsibility inevitably produce *more* dependency - not less. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
    ... into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back. ... Social Security funding separate from the General Fund, ... to do with how the government funds it). ... of a gradual migration to private retirement funds, ...
    (rec.woodworking)