Social Security running out of $$$ again......

[CurtisH]

Glenn Beck; And your point is? Assuming your "facts" are correct, Lyndon Johnson sealed the deal, period! Exactly, what are you refuting? The South was solidly Democrat "dixiecrat" until LBJ broke their final straw. Wanna rewrite history and claim that the South championed equality and hated Segregation too? Not saying that Connecticut didn`t have a strong KKK Chapter in Shelton, but where was their core epi-center?

Let's see. You said "LBJ basically committed political suicide, destroyed his own career, Vietnam war, notwithstanding, by giving both Texas and the South to the Republicans forever for sticking his finger into the South`s segregationist eyes". Grbeck refuted that point. Doesn't sound like he's trying to re-write history, just correct your assumption.

[grbeck]

Glenn Beck; And your point is? Assuming your "facts" are correct, Lyndon Johnson sealed the deal, period! Exactly, what are you refuting? The South was solidly Democrat "dixiecrat" until LBJ broke their final straw. Wanna rewrite history and claim that the South championed equality and hated Segregation too? Not saying that Connecticut didn`t have a strong KKK Chapter in Shelton, but where was their core epi-center?

My name isn't Glenn Beck, so you'll actually have to address what I posted instead of bringing up unrelated subjects in an attempt at diversion.

 

The link refuted your claim; the more prosperous, cosmopolitan areas of the South were trending Republican before the mid-1960s. You need to address that fact. Please note that wailing about Glenn Beck, or saying, "Because I said so," or, "This is what my friends tell me over a beer at the pub," do not constitute real rebuttals.

 

I realize that bringing actual facts to a discussion where someone prefers to rely on Tea Party bashing and blaming Republicans for everything short of the sinking of the Titanic is almost cruel, but, at some point, it has to be done.

 

Anyone who has been around the block a few times when it comes to policy and politics quickly realizes that attempts to blame everything on one side are wildly inaccurate, whether the role of the bad guy is to be filled by Democrats or Republicans.

Edited August 8, 2014 by grbeck

[phil1336]

My name isn't Glenn Beck, so you'll actually have to address what I posted instead of bringing up unrelated subjects in an attempt at diversion.

 

The link refuted your claim; the more prosperous, cosmopolitan areas of the South were trending Republican before the mid-1960s. You need to address that fact. Please note that wailing about Glenn Beck, or saying, "Because I said so," or, "This is what my friends tell me over a beer at the pub," do not constitute real rebuttals.

 

I realize that bringing actual facts to a discussion where someone prefers to rely on Tea Party bashing and blaming Republicans for everything short of the sinking of the Titanic is almost cruel, but, at some point, it has to be done.

 

Anyone who has been around the block a few times when it comes to policy and politics quickly realizes that attempts to blame everything on one side are wildly inaccurate, whether the role of the bad guy is to be filled by Democrats or Republicans.

Rather then attract Kirbys "ire", I will concede that the extreme partisan bias is on both sides of the aisle. Blaming Obama for everything and anything beyond what was thrown on "W" never seems to be included but excepted as simply, "fair play". Sorry for confusing you with (my) source of knowledge, the (real) Glenn Beck. My apologies.

Edited August 8, 2014 by phil1336

[Imawhosure]

Rather then attract Kirbys "ire", I will concede that the extreme partisan bias is on both sides of the aisle. Blaming Obama for everything and anything beyond what was thrown on "W" never seems to be included but excepted as simply, "fair play". Sorry for confusing you with (my) source of knowledge, the (real) Glenn Beck. My apologies.

Well, the tea party wants S.S. to be solvent; what is wrong with that?

 

And your erroneous assertion that the Tea Party was born out of hate for Obama shows how misinformed you are friend Phil. Where did you learn that from? Tell all of us who read your posts, or is that just your in error assumption?

 

Actually, the Tea Party was born when GW was in office because he was spending money hand over fist and a lot of republican conservatives didn't like it. In other words-----------> the "Tea Party" was born out of the necessity to stand against a republican President who was acting like a goof on spending, and "gasp," were standing with the democrats who were at that point in time, railing against his spending too.

 

Who would have known that upon GW leaving office, we would end up with A BIGGER SPENDER, and that those kind and loving democrats would change sides since the new guy was spending money on things they liked. (don't believe me, look it up)

 

Do you even know what "Tea Party" stands for? T-E-A? Taxed-Enough-Already!

 

For your information, I have been to more than one of their meetings, and gasp...........there was more than 1 African American, more than 1 Hispanic, more than 1 woman, and in fact; nobody talked about doing anything to anybody but the congress and President, in an attempt to get spending under control. The secondary topic at all the meetings was fixing S.S. and deciding what to do about Medicare/Obamacare. Sounds real radical to me! You should really try it. Hey, the worst thing that can happen is WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD is accurate, lolol. It isn't, but then if I was in power trying to hold on from either party, I would tell you the Pope is radical if he wanted to change things too, while knocking myself and friends of the ruling elite out of the box!

[phil1336]

Well, the tea party wants S.S. to be solvent; what is wrong with that?

 

And your erroneous assertion that the Tea Party was born out of hate for Obama shows how misinformed you are friend Phil. Where did you learn that from? Tell all of us who read your posts, or is that just your in error assumption?

 

Actually, the Tea Party was born when GW was in office because he was spending money hand over fist and a lot of republican conservatives didn't like it. In other words-----------> the "Tea Party" was born out of the necessity to stand against a republican President who was acting like a goof on spending, and "gasp," were standing with the democrats who were at that point in time, railing against his spending too.

 

Who would have known that upon GW leaving office, we would end up with A BIGGER SPENDER, and that those kind and loving democrats would change sides since the new guy was spending money on things they liked. (don't believe me, look it up)

 

Do you even know what "Tea Party" stands for? T-E-A? Taxed-Enough-Already!

 

For your information, I have been to more than one of their meetings, and gasp...........there was more than 1 African American, more than 1 Hispanic, more than 1 woman, and in fact; nobody talked about doing anything to anybody but the congress and President, in an attempt to get spending under control. The secondary topic at all the meetings was fixing S.S. and deciding what to do about Medicare/Obamacare. Sounds real radical to me! You should really try it. Hey, the worst thing that can happen is WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD is accurate, lolol. It isn't, but then if I was in power trying to hold on from either party, I would tell you the Pope is radical if he wanted to change things too, while knocking myself and friends of the ruling elite out of the box!

Kindly tell me where the Tea Party was before "O" got elected President? A seed that lay dormant during the "W" years that suddenly sprouted and grew like Jack & The Bean Stalk as soon as Obama moved into 1600 Pennsylvanaia Ave, just saying.......Just a co-incidence?

[napfirst]

Kindly tell me where the Tea Party was before "O" got elected President? A seed that lay dormant during the "W" years that suddenly sprouted and grew like Jack & The Bean Stalk as soon as Obama moved into 1600 Pennsylvanaia Ave, just saying.......Just a co-incidence?

The roots of the Tea Party go back to 2007 and Ron Paul.....but don't let the facts get in the way of you race baiting....

[grbeck]

Rather then attract Kirbys "ire", I will concede that the extreme partisan bias is on both sides of the aisle. Blaming Obama for everything and anything beyond what was thrown on "W" never seems to be included but excepted as simply, "fair play". Sorry for confusing you with (my) source of knowledge, the (real) Glenn Beck. My apologies.

Apology accepted, but I don't recall the media or the critics going very easily on George W. Bush - certainly not during his second term.

[phil1336]

The roots of the Tea Party go back to 2007 and Ron Paul.....but don't let the facts get in the way of you race baiting....

Race Baiting...who me? Let see, you claim the modern day Tea Party "roots" go back to 2007 and Libertarian Ron Paul, Father of 2016 Presidential hopeful and Genius Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul huh? Thanks for reminding me not to let my (facts) get in the way. When was the election held that Barack Hussein Obama won his first term as President? November of 2007 and sworn into Office in Jan 2008? Oh my, what a co-incidence, you think? My sincere condolences over your loss of Eric Cantor. HIs "Tea" was too strong for John Boehner`s taste but too weak for the Tea Party base, so sad, indeed.

[akirby]

You're obviously not a tea party member and you have no knowledge of the history or intent of the tea party other than what you've made up in your mind and heard on liberal media. I actually know some tea party members (active) whose only goal is to reduce government spending and the national debt. To that end they've opposed Republican candidates and supported Democrats and Libertarians. They despise Obama because he's the one who is continuing to spend with no end in sight. If Bush was still in office they'd be doing the same damn thing.

 

They may have been taken over by Christian conservatives publicly and may not all be following the original goals but that doesn't change the party intent or core beliefs.

 

Everything with you is extreme - super rich or super poor, super conservative or super liberal with no room for anything in between. If you don't like Obama then you're a greedy capitalistic war mongering environment destroying asshole. You want to blame everything bad in the country and world on the Republicans and you overlook everything the conservatives do. Then you accuse us of doing the same thing in reverse.

 

What you don't get is that it's not the liberals or the conservatives - it's GOVERNMENT. The current group in Congress has lost touch with the country. They're so caught up in this college football game mentality of "my side has to win" that it's getting in the way of addressing real issues. All they care about is getting re-elected. It's time to start over with a new batch and if they don't get it, start over again until we get a group that cooperates with each other and does what is best for the country and not what is best for themselves.

[napfirst]

Race Baiting...who me? Let see, you claim the modern day Tea Party "roots" go back to 2007 and Libertarian Ron Paul, Father of 2016 Presidential hopeful and Genius Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul huh? Thanks for reminding me not to let my (facts) get in the way. When was the election held that Barack Hussein Obama won his first term as President? November of 2007 and sworn into Office in Jan 2008? Oh my, what a co-incidence, you think? My sincere condolences over your loss of Eric Cantor. HIs "Tea" was too strong for John Boehner`s taste but too weak for the Tea Party base, so sad, indeed.

Let me help you with the "facts".....your trying to rewrite history to fit your bias narrative ....federal elections are held in Nov. in even numbered years,....then reps, senators and POTUS take office the following Jan and that would be an uneven year....stay with me now.....so obama would have won the dem's nomination in Sept. of 2008 and the election in Nov. 2008 and then went into office in Jan. 2009.....so you're saying that back in 2007 someone knew obama would get elected more than a year later and formed the Tea Party?...nice try, but no cigar....you're watching too much msnbc

[phil1336]

Let me help you with the "facts".....your trying to rewrite history to fit your bias narrative ....federal elections are held in Nov. in even numbered years,....then reps, senators and POTUS take office the following Jan and that would be an uneven year....stay with me now.....so obama would have won the dem's nomination in Sept. of 2008 and the election in Nov. 2008 and then went into office in Jan. 2009.....so you're saying that back in 2007 someone knew obama would get elected more than a year later and formed the Tea Party?...nice try, but no cigar....you're watching too much msnbc

Your correct! Guess I had a few too many "Pints" before I posted the Obama Win in Nov of 2007 rather then 2008 and later being sworn in Jan of 2009. I don`t watch nearly as much MSNBC as I`m sure you watch and get your Gospel from Fox News and Friends as well as most AM Talk Radio. My point was and still is, even moving the clock back to 2007, a period according to (your) calculations was the birth of the modern day Tea Party, whats a gestation period plus or minus 12 months unless your Pregnant and expecting? The fact in undeniable that just like a Hurricane builds up strength as its crosses warm Ocean water, the (nouveau) Tea Party got very energized once "O" came into Prime Time. By the way, not to change the subject but whats with VA Gov McDonnell and his Wife and those (liberal) allegations being smeared on them. Family Values, again? Cheers Sergeant...

[Imawhosure]

Exactly Akirby. Just look at who the republicans are running in most of these races..........older than dirt people; actually, old white guys. And when someone young challenges them in a primary, (and when I say young, I mean late 30s to late 40s) they use every trick in the book as a total party to defeat them.

 

It is the same for the democrats, Charlie Rangelle, or Tricky Dick Durbin, etc. These people were there for a lot of the screwing up of this country, went along with it, and here we are.

 

Heck, by the time social security and everything else collapses, all these goofs are going to be dead!

 

The republicans despise the Tea Party because it attempts to take its power and base. The democrats hate the tea party because they will close the checkbook. Therefore, they BOTH complain about them, and the people who get their information from nightly news see them totally different then what they are.

 

And so, I have a question--------------> name me 1 (let me spell that for anyone willing to answer O-N-E) piece of legislation that the tea party supports that is racist, that is homophobic, that is anti old people, anti young people, or anti female. In fact, the tea party is in support of legislation that fixes what over 60% of the American public claim they are worried about, or want fixed.

 

And what is all that legislation?

 

1. Shrinking the national debt.

 

2. Forcing LEGAL immigration.

 

3. Fixing social security.

 

4. Changing the tax code to a much simpler form so as lobbyists can NOT manipulate it.

 

5. Repealing/changing Obamacare. (and like it or not, close to 60% of America wants this)

 

6. Forcing congress to do its job, and stopping the executive branch from over doing theirs. In other words..........following the constitution when it comes to separation of powers.

 

7. reinstating states rights.

 

8. Fixing the V.A.

 

And the list goes on to about 25 I believe. Nothing radical here, and the reason it addresses the issues they do, is because they are regular people. They are no politicians, nor community organizers, nor corporation CEOs. They are us trying to fix our country for our children.

 

And for Phil, I offer you this as proof positive that the group in Washington will NEVER fix Social Security because it will piss off to many people---------->

 

I contend that you, I, and a smart accountant could go into a room in Washington for about 2hrs and fix social security. (and the only reason we need an accountant is because we need him/her to run the numbers to insure it is solvent when we are done)

 

1. Social Security is an INSURANCE program, therefore.............depending upon your outside income AFTER you retire, you get between 100%, down to 65%, but never less than 65%. In other words.............somebody who has nothing would receive 100%, somebody who had money coming in from any source that equaled over 200,000 dollars would receive 65%. Everyone else falls between.

 

2. People 49 and older keep retirement age. 49 to 45 add 1yr. 44 to 40 2yrs. 39 to 35 3yrs. 34 and below, 5yrs.

 

3. At NO income level does Social Security stop from being deducted; BUT, if you own your own business, when you reach todays threshold you no longer pay BOTH the employer and employee rate, you only pay 1, at a 50% rate. Also, someone who is employed by another also has their rate drop by 50%.(and this includes the employer rate) At some point, it drops to 25%, then 10%, but never lower than 10%.

 

4. The money in Social Security can NOT be put into the general fund UNLESS the fund is funded to the tune of 75% of fully funded. (this stops them from spending it, then coming back and claiming you aren't paying your fairshare) The government CAN use the money to invest in STATE bonds rated AAA or higher, but can NOT use the money to buy treasury bonds.

 

There, we just solved the social security problem. Of course, we just gave congress a large problem since they can't put that money in the general fund, but whoever said congress job was only to figure a way to spend more money each year, and not figure out how to spend less?!?!

[phil1336]

You're obviously not a tea party member and you have no knowledge of the history or intent of the tea party other than what you've made up in your mind and heard on liberal media. I actually know some tea party members (active) whose only goal is to reduce government spending and the national debt. To that end they've opposed Republican candidates and supported Democrats and Libertarians. They despise Obama because he's the one who is continuing to spend with no end in sight. If Bush was still in office they'd be doing the same damn thing.

 

They may have been taken over by Christian conservatives publicly and may not all be following the original goals but that doesn't change the party intent or core beliefs.

 

Everything with you is extreme - super rich or super poor, super conservative or super liberal with no room for anything in between. If you don't like Obama then you're a greedy capitalistic war mongering environment destroying asshole. You want to blame everything bad in the country and world on the Republicans and you overlook everything the conservatives do. Then you accuse us of doing the same thing in reverse.

 

What you don't get is that it's not the liberals or the conservatives - it's GOVERNMENT. The current group in Congress has lost touch with the country. They're so caught up in this college football game mentality of "my side has to win" that it's getting in the way of addressing real issues. All they care about is getting re-elected. It's time to start over with a new batch and if they don't get it, start over again until we get a group that cooperates with each other and does what is best for the country and not what is best for themselves.

I will (I promise) , leave this thread once and for all. Just as once before, I found myself being more in agreement with your last Post then I possibly could imagine, you hit a common chord of a paralysis caused by lack of "compromise" that is entrenched on both side of the Aisle. I am still adamant that Warfare Queens and Warlocks that love the beat of War Drums should have no say in getting our Nation involved in another War or Conflict without re-instating the Draft. I blame the Dems on this issue as much if not more so then the Repubs. You did`n`t refute my assessment of the wealth and privileged class have not contributing their fair share of Sons and Daughters volunteering to wear the Uniform. To admit that would be pandering to god forbid accusations of "Class Warfare"? I`ll return to "On Topic" Ford related issues and leave you and the majority of the Tea Party crew to rally around your heros of Ted Cruz, Blake Farenthold, Louie Golmert, MIchelle Bachmann,Sarah Palin, Steve King, and Rick Perry to carry your Banner to Victory in 2016.

[phil1336]

Exactly Akirby. Just look at who the republicans are running in most of these races..........older than dirt people; actually, old white guys. And when someone young challenges them in a primary, (and when I say young, I mean late 30s to late 40s) they use every trick in the book as a total party to defeat them.

 

It is the same for the democrats, Charlie Rangelle, or Tricky Dick Durbin, etc. These people were there for a lot of the screwing up of this country, went along with it, and here we are.

 

Heck, by the time social security and everything else collapses, all these goofs are going to be dead!

 

The republicans despise the Tea Party because it attempts to take its power and base. The democrats hate the tea party because they will close the checkbook. Therefore, they BOTH complain about them, and the people who get their information from nightly news see them totally different then what they are.

 

And so, I have a question--------------> name me 1 (let me spell that for anyone willing to answer O-N-E) piece of legislation that the tea party supports that is racist, that is homophobic, that is anti old people, anti young people, or anti female. In fact, the tea party is in support of legislation that fixes what over 60% of the American public claim they are worried about, or want fixed.

 

And what is all that legislation?

 

1. Shrinking the national debt.

 

2. Forcing LEGAL immigration.

 

3. Fixing social security.

 

4. Changing the tax code to a much simpler form so as lobbyists can NOT manipulate it.

 

5. Repealing/changing Obamacare. (and like it or not, close to 60% of America wants this)

 

6. Forcing congress to do its job, and stopping the executive branch from over doing theirs. In other words..........following the constitution when it comes to separation of powers.

 

7. reinstating states rights.

 

8. Fixing the V.A.

 

And the list goes on to about 25 I believe. Nothing radical here, and the reason it addresses the issues they do, is because they are regular people. They are no politicians, nor community organizers, nor corporation CEOs. They are us trying to fix our country for our children.

 

And for Phil, I offer you this as proof positive that the group in Washington will NEVER fix Social Security because it will piss off to many people---------->

 

I contend that you, I, and a smart accountant could go into a room in Washington for about 2hrs and fix social security. (and the only reason we need an accountant is because we need him/her to run the numbers to insure it is solvent when we are done)

 

1. Social Security is an INSURANCE program, therefore.............depending upon your outside income AFTER you retire, you get between 100%, down to 65%, but never less than 65%. In other words.............somebody who has nothing would receive 100%, somebody who had money coming in from any source that equaled over 200,000 dollars would receive 65%. Everyone else falls between.

 

2. People 49 and older keep retirement age. 49 to 45 add 1yr. 44 to 40 2yrs. 39 to 35 3yrs. 34 and below, 5yrs.

 

3. At NO income level does Social Security stop from being deducted; BUT, if you own your own business, when you reach todays threshold you no longer pay BOTH the employer and employee rate, you only pay 1, at a 50% rate. Also, someone who is employed by another also has their rate drop by 50%.(and this includes the employer rate) At some point, it drops to 25%, then 10%, but never lower than 10%.

 

4. The money in Social Security can NOT be put into the general fund UNLESS the fund is funded to the tune of 75% of fully funded. (this stops them from spending it, then coming back and claiming you aren't paying your fairshare) The government CAN use the money to invest in STATE bonds rated AAA or higher, but can NOT use the money to buy treasury bonds.

 

There, we just solved the social security problem. Of course, we just gave congress a large problem since they can't put that money in the general fund, but whoever said congress job was only to figure a way to spend more money each year, and not figure out how to spend less?!?!

Did your forget.......

1. Equal Pay for Women doing the identical Job as a Men

2. Protecting Women`s reproductive rights.

3. Allowing same sex Marriage or Legal Unions

4. Legalizing Marijuana for medical use and/or decriminalizing its possession.

5. Getting rid of pay for profit prisons.

6. Reducing Corporate taxes but at the same time eliminating all subsidies,loopholes, and depletion allowances

6. Replace "RomneyCare" with a workable national healthcare system for all Americans like MediCare and Medicaid.

 

You get the idea...I`m running out of clothes pins

[akirby]

If military service is voluntary then it's voluntary for both rich and poor. Nobody is forcing the poor to join up nor are they more likely to join than middle class families. This is why you're on probation - you post your opinions as facts even when they're incorrect.

 

 

You must now post a factually accurate and recent study that supports your claim that the poor join the military in a disproportionately higher percentage than middle and upper class or admit that you were wrong before you can post again in the off topic section.

 

(I've been around RJ too long)

Edited August 12, 2014 by akirby

[akirby]

And why do you have to post the evidence instead of us? Because you made the accusation twice, not us.

[xr7g428]

A few facts... There are two components to the Social Security Insurance system. Medicare is sometimes considered a part of the system and it is administered by the same folks, but for the sake of clarity lets look at the SSI First, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). This is the retirement component. Second, The Disability Insurance (DI), this is insurance for those who become disabled before reaching regular retirement age.

 

The two systems have two different trust funds different funds. Each trust fund invests any money above what it required to make current payments in US Treasury Bonds. The fund then earns a very modest amount of interest income on those bonds. For the past several decades more money was coming in than going out and a substantial part of the government debt was actually owed to the SSI trust funds.

 

What is happening now is that the DI trust fund has almost burned through its savings. It will run out in 2016. This is caused by large numbers of people using disability as a retirement program.

[napfirst]

My point was and still is, even moving the clock back to 2007, a period according to (your) calculations was the birth of the modern day Tea Party, whats a gestation period plus or minus 12 months unless your Pregnant and expecting? .

the 2007 birth of the Tea Party was not my "calculation"....it was when it started...again, nice try at making your narrative fit history...seems like you do that a lot on here...

[Imawhosure]

Honest Phil, that is when the Tea Party started. It was sooooooooo upset with Bush, its main objective was to put conservatives..........not republicans.......in congress. And it is 100% absolutely true that the democrats banned with them. Look back in internet articles, and see what the democrats and Tea Party people were BOTH saying about "The President Bush" spending machine.

 

This is how you know that the Tea Party people are NOT politicians. They don't care who/whom, or which party is in office, they stick by what they say.

 

And as far as the list you posted for what they SHOULD add, they are only picking things that will sink the country; and issues that should actually go across party lines. You have been fed a "red herring" Phil. From what I have seen personally, 1/3 of the tea party is former democrats. 2/3 are former republicans. They are not so much interested in social policy, but rather fiscal policy and jobs. This is exactly why 1/3 of them are former democrats. You put in some social policies that lean solidly left or right, and the whole movement falls apart. But, as long as it is all about balancing the books and saving American jobs, both parties members can feel free and comfortable to join, and can argue later when there is (if ever) a surplus of cash, and where it should go.

 

Their philosophy is simple, and I agree with it 100%----------> it is better to get together and FORCE our government to get things together and create a surplus we can then argue over; instead of arguing over money we do not have, creating massive amounts of debt that will sink all of us, or our children after we are gone! You do realize, we are passing massive taxes down to the people of our country, that today are not even old enough to vote to have a say in it.

 

You would think (no, I would think) that you would be the 1st on board with this amongst all others on here, because what we are doing is----------> creating a situation where someone (s) are being forced to pay taxation (in the future) without representation in government. (today)

 

No here is a little insight for you Phil-----------> I am called an evil conservative, and whole bunch of other descriptive terms because I do not agree this should be done. Isn't it kinda amazing that I; along with many other conservatives............fight what is happening, while the other side (along with the help of the rinos) run up trillions in debt! We aren't trying to lobby to get MORE money, we are lobbying to get them to CUT spending to save the country, and allow congress decide where/what they want to cut.

 

So how bad are we? Pretty bad I guess. I suppose expecting Washington to do its job is to much.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Imawhosure

[phil1336]

the 2007 birth of the Tea Party was not my "calculation"....it was when it started...again, nice try at making your narrative fit history...seems like you do that a lot on here...

So, you feel that the "modern day" Tea Party having its origins in 2007, a mere 12 months (before) "O" got elected President was simply a co-incidence, huh? From a (seed) of discontent to a full grown Tree in just one year. Just what was this (magic) plant food or fertilizer that created such sudden growth? Couldn`t be the "Tan" since John Boehner`s spray on or tanning salon glow hasn`t effected him as dramatically as Obama. Playing that (race) card again, huh? Why not, unless you can prove that its (not) in the Deck!

[phil1336]

And why do you have to post the evidence instead of us? Because you made the accusation twice, not us.

KIrby; Would you say a "reasonable" Person would simply assume that young Men and Women from wealthy and prosperous families might have better job opportunities and less financial pressure to find employment then those from so called "middle-class" and "poor" families? With few employment options, many, both Minorities and Caucasians seek College and Job Training benefits that our Military provides as an incentive. That is simply common sense. If that requires both (hard) facts and numbers, I will gladly except your "excommunication". Maybe you can provide me with some "numbers"? How many Posters in these Off Topic Forums seem to lean Conservative/Right to those like myself who admittedly lean to the Progressive/Left? Perhaps a Membership in good standing with the John Birch Society is just around the corner too. I promised to leave these Off Topic Threads, and rather then await your punishment of "probation" or temporary "suspension" I will show (myself) to the door to exit. Differing opinions and point of views (in theory) is always welcomed, but when subjected to 10X magnification, not so much. I will let you "Gentleman" continue to form your consensus that soon, The South Will Rise Again, and all of America`s problems will be put behind us. They said the same during "Reconstruction" and what happened? Jim Crow soon followed! Cheers

[akirby]

this has nothing to do with differing opinions. You made a factual statement about who is volunteering that is totally wrong. Part of it has already been refuted over in the benghazi thread by Ron W. As for the economic background I've already seen the data that refutes what you said, but I'm not going to post it for you. It's easy to find with Google.

 

I'm tired of people spouting lies and claiming they are facts when they aren't. Find a source that agrees with what you said over in the Benghazi thread or admit you were wrong or no more posting. It's really simple.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Why not, unless you can prove that its (not) in the Deck!

Proving negative? Great ploy to try to undermine an opposing argument

[akirby]

With few employment options, many, both Minorities and Caucasians seek College and Job Training benefits that our Military provides as an incentive. That is simply common sense.

 

It's NOT common sense because it's WRONG. Perhaps you should look up facts instead of making assumptions that fit your bias.

[Edstock]

Comin' at ya . . .

WHEN THE JOBS DISAPPEAR it's going to be really tough on capitalism. This video is an accurate forecast without the hype of what kind of changes are coming for your children to deal with. The next thirty years are going to be so interesting . . .