If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   The elephant is drinking water from the river Denial   (carrollcountytimes.com) divider line 93
    More: Dumbass, drinking water, denials  
•       •       •

4739 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 May 2012 at 9:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-21 11:18:15 AM

ghare: If there was ever a threadshiattter who proved the point of an article, you're it.


+1

Arguing with an idiot only brings you down to the level of the idiot
 
2012-05-21 11:18:19 AM
My bad 2008. 3/4 - 75% - of Bush's presidency is unaccounted for on your graph. Not 7/8 or 87.5%.
 
2012-05-21 11:24:06 AM
I really have come to the conclusion that the bulk of the Republican base see their party as their old high school football team. Win or lose, their school is best. To get the school to win, you have to show your spirit. One of the best way to show school spirit is to vandalize the other guy. Don't listen to anything good about the other school or anything bad about your own school. Cream the other guy if you hear him talk smack about your school.

Are there Democrats who feel that way? Of course, but they are in the minority, and the party does not egg them on.
 
2012-05-21 11:28:54 AM
"the river Denial?" come on subby, what's wrong with you?
 
2012-05-21 11:33:33 AM
I hope he bought a lot of popcorn, as well as flame-retardant pants.

Comments are disabled on the article, but I'm sure he'll get enough hate mail and death threats to keep the local cops busy for a while.
 
2012-05-21 11:37:22 AM
More silly cliches rather than real analysis. It's par for the course from people who have a surface-level understanding of politics but think they're making deep points.

First, it's silly to blame Bush for the 2008 crash. He didn't cause the housing bubble (nor did he do much to prevent it, to be fair). He didn't decide not to regulate credit default swaps. He didn't pass the Community Reinvestment Act. He didn't create mortgage backed securities. He did get caught holding the bag when the inevitable crash happened - but the root causes of the crash all preceded him. And yes, that means that Obama wasn't at fault either.

Same on spending. Bush left a $118 billion structural deficit. The spending on Medicare Part D and the wars add another $80 billion or so. I won't defend Bush's spending record because I agree that he spent too much. But how the hell can you argue that Bush is responsible for continued deficits into 2019 and beyond? Because the tax cuts will expire on then. Under Bush's own plans the wars would be wrapped up by then. And in fact, President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and has embraced the same timetables in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush has. Making the argument that a $1.5 trillion deficit is due to Bush is idiotic - unless you think that somehow Bush hypnotized Obama into spending over a trillion dollars. It's a ridiculous argument.

And yes, raising the debt ceiling now is different than raising it when you have a decently-growing economy and a relatively low amount of debt. Letting yourself borrow another $500 when you have $10,000 in debt may not be responsible, but it's not massively unwise. Letting yourself borrow another $500 when you're $50,000 in debt is a much, much worse idea, especially when you have no plan for paying down that debt.

We can't keep spending like this - we can't borrow forever and we're getting to the point where we can't realistically grow fast enough to pay debt service and entitlement spending.

You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.
 
2012-05-21 11:37:42 AM

Cletus C.: Curse of the Goth Kids: hugram: Cletus C.: Summary: Blame Bush.

Brilliant.

Should we eventually stop blaming OBL for 9/11?

This. Vast quantities of this.

One of the many things Republicans seem to be in denial about is the fact that the Bush administration did some pretty hefty damage to this country, and being out of office doesn't get them a free pass for it any more than his resignation got Nixon a free pass for Watergate. Yeah, he got pardoned, but he still did it and nobody will ever try to claim otherwise.

Oh, the weak sauce. Then tell your Democratic white knights to throw up their hands and say the Bush mess is unfixable. We're out. Good luck.


Yes, because it's impossible to clean up someone else's mess without accepting responsibility for the other person's wrongdoings. Brilliant.
 
2012-05-21 11:38:23 AM
The Obama locksteppers here are hilarious.

Bush. Bush. Bush. Bush.

You know what? If the country was so farked up that Obama couldn't fix it he should have just said so. Or not run.

Obama was given an almost $1 trillion slush fund to fix the economy. The social gerrymandering and political paybackery stacked within his spending spree didn't seem to do much, really.

Unless you're one of the dozens now working a green job.

It's the economy, fools. The sitting president pays the price for that. Not the president before him. Bush was a mess but he was four years ago's mess. Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief. But we have a new president now.

Don't we?
 
2012-05-21 11:40:56 AM

Cletus C.: If the country was so farked up that Obama couldn't fix it he should have just said so. Or not run.


How does that make any sense?

Cletus C.: social gerrymandering and political paybackery


What the hell are these things?

Cletus C.: Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief.


And, shockingly, his policies and programs don't magically go away when he's out of office, and one of two political parties has a vested interest in either keeping or expanding those policies and programs.
 
2012-05-21 11:43:27 AM

WombatControl: You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.


We're not hanging off any sort of cliff, and if we were, I think you'd agree that the people who drove us to the edge in the first place don't exactly have a lot of credibility when it comes to dealing with the cliff.
 
2012-05-21 11:44:47 AM

Cletus C.: It's the economy, fools. The sitting president pays the price for that. Not the president before him. Bush was a mess but he was four years ago's mess. Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief. But we have a new president now.


It's physics, fools. The current quantum state of the universe pays the price for that. Not the quantum states before. The Big Bang was a mess but that was fourteen billion years ago's mess. Yes, it was a violent upheaval and a reckless disregard for Newtonian principles. But we have new physics now.

// just because something happened in the past, doesn't mean it's not still relevant, or can't teach us things about today's circumstances
 
2012-05-21 11:47:23 AM

Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: It's the economy, fools. The sitting president pays the price for that. Not the president before him. Bush was a mess but he was four years ago's mess. Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief. But we have a new president now.

It's physics, fools. The current quantum state of the universe pays the price for that. Not the quantum states before. The Big Bang was a mess but that was fourteen billion years ago's mess. Yes, it was a violent upheaval and a reckless disregard for Newtonian principles. But we have new physics now.

// just because something happened in the past, doesn't mean it's not still relevant, or can't teach us things about today's circumstances


So blame Clinton?
 
2012-05-21 11:48:39 AM

Cletus C.: Oh, the weak sauce. Then tell your Democratic white knights to throw up their hands and say the Bush mess is unfixable. We're out. Good luck.


Besides trolling, do you have any other talents or special powers? The reason I ask is that I've friended you as a right wing troll/douche like six times now and you keep dropping from the list.

It's like you have some sort of friends list hax.
 
2012-05-21 11:50:08 AM

qorkfiend: And, shockingly, his policies and programs don't magically go away when he's out of office, and one of two political parties has a vested interest in either keeping or expanding those policies and programs.


And there I was, hoping for change. Silly me.
 
2012-05-21 11:59:03 AM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.

We're not hanging off any sort of cliff, and if we were, I think you'd agree that the people who drove us to the edge in the first place don't exactly have a lot of credibility when it comes to dealing with the cliff.


The hell we're not - we have tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone. Social Security will be insolvent within the next couple of years at this rate. And that's before we even talk about discretionary spending.

Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they're right that we have to A:) dramatically reduce the rate of government spending and B:) restore the economy to sustainable growth. And the only way to do that is to shift the balance of power away from Washington D.C. and stop stifling future growth. The Tea Party is a direct consequence of the political establishment on both sides failing to take our financial predicament seriously.
 
2012-05-21 12:00:38 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Cletus C.: Oh, the weak sauce. Then tell your Democratic white knights to throw up their hands and say the Bush mess is unfixable. We're out. Good luck.

Besides trolling, do you have any other talents or special powers? The reason I ask is that I've friended you as a right wing troll/douche like six times now and you keep dropping from the list.

It's like you have some sort of friends list hax.


Awwww, my first friend. Thanks.
 
2012-05-21 12:01:12 PM

Cletus C.: ghare: nothing
nothing
nothing

*Sigh*

Honestly, your world feels a little masturbatory.


Cletus, does the 'C' stand for Cockgoblin? Seriously, you are doing nothing but shiatting on this thread.
 
2012-05-21 12:05:47 PM

Cletus C.: qorkfiend: And, shockingly, his policies and programs don't magically go away when he's out of office, and one of two political parties has a vested interest in either keeping or expanding those policies and programs.

And there I was, hoping for change. Silly me.


If you were hoping for a dictator who could reverse the previous decade by fiat, yes, you're pretty silly.
 
2012-05-21 12:05:53 PM

nekulor: Cletus C.: ghare: nothing
nothing
nothing

*Sigh*

Honestly, your world feels a little masturbatory.

Cletus, does the 'C' stand for Cockgoblin? Seriously, you are doing nothing but shiatting on this thread.


Cockgoblin? Is that some sort of homophobic slur? Or maybe another volley in your war on women?
 
2012-05-21 12:09:51 PM

Cletus C.: Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: It's the economy, fools. The sitting president pays the price for that. Not the president before him. Bush was a mess but he was four years ago's mess. Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief. But we have a new president now.

It's physics, fools. The current quantum state of the universe pays the price for that. Not the quantum states before. The Big Bang was a mess but that was fourteen billion years ago's mess. Yes, it was a violent upheaval and a reckless disregard for Newtonian principles. But we have new physics now.

// just because something happened in the past, doesn't mean it's not still relevant, or can't teach us things about today's circumstances

So blame Clinton?


If you can make a case as to why the administration that presided over the largest expansion of the American economy since just after WWII is responsible for its subsequent contraction (or recession), I'm all ears. If you can make the case that Clintonian policies are more responsible for our current state of affairs than the W-Bushian ones, I'll buy myself lunch.

That's what this is about, friend - honest arguing using actual facts. That's not just saying "No it isn't Democrats bad".
 
2012-05-21 12:10:14 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.

We're not hanging off any sort of cliff, and if we were, I think you'd agree that the people who drove us to the edge in the first place don't exactly have a lot of credibility when it comes to dealing with the cliff.

The hell we're not - we have tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone. Social Security will be insolvent within the next couple of years at this rate. And that's before we even talk about discretionary spending.


But if you listen to what Charles Blahous said in his controversial report about how ObamaCares will expand the deficit, the reason it does that is because he assumed that, by current law, Social Security and Medicare cannot spend more money than the combined sum of incoming revenues and current trust fund balance. The only way those unfunded liabilites actually become unfunded liabilites is if we change the law to funnel general revenues by the semi-truck-full into covering those shortfalls. It would take an affirmative change to law by both Congress and the President to make that happen.
 
2012-05-21 12:19:25 PM

Cletus C.: It's the economy, fools. The sitting president pays the price for that. Not the president before him. Bush was a mess but he was four years ago's mess. Yes, he was a big spender and a reckless commander in chief. But we have a new president now.


content.cartoonbox.slate.com
 
2012-05-21 12:23:04 PM

Serious Black: WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.

We're not hanging off any sort of cliff, and if we were, I think you'd agree that the people who drove us to the edge in the first place don't exactly have a lot of credibility when it comes to dealing with the cliff.

The hell we're not - we have tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone. Social Security will be insolvent within the next couple of years at this rate. And that's before we even talk about discretionary spending.

But if you listen to what Charles Blahous said in his controversial report about how ObamaCares will expand the deficit, the reason it does that is because he assumed that, by current law, Social Security and Medicare cannot spend more money than the combined sum of incoming revenues and current trust fund balance. The only way those unfunded liabilites actually become unfunded liabilites is if we change the law to funnel general revenues by the semi-truck-full into covering those shortfalls. It would take an affirmative change to law by both Congress and the President to make that happen.


Which leaves out the consequences of that position: if general revenues aren't used to cover the shortfall, Social Security and Medicare benefits have to be cut. That is, to be blunt, political suicide -- which is why Congress will likely have to start diverting general funds to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat for as long as possible.

If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.
 
2012-05-21 12:24:26 PM

WombatControl: If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.


There are a dozen options besides "cut Social Security and Medicare".
 
2012-05-21 12:31:22 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: You can biatch all you want about the Republicans not wanting the country to go "forward", but when you're hanging off the end of a farking cliff, "forward" is the last direction you should be going. The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future. That may not make them popular, but it has to be done.

We're not hanging off any sort of cliff, and if we were, I think you'd agree that the people who drove us to the edge in the first place don't exactly have a lot of credibility when it comes to dealing with the cliff.

The hell we're not - we have tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare alone. Social Security will be insolvent within the next couple of years at this rate. And that's before we even talk about discretionary spending.

But if you listen to what Charles Blahous said in his controversial report about how ObamaCares will expand the deficit, the reason it does that is because he assumed that, by current law, Social Security and Medicare cannot spend more money than the combined sum of incoming revenues and current trust fund balance. The only way those unfunded liabilites actually become unfunded liabilites is if we change the law to funnel general revenues by the semi-truck-full into covering those shortfalls. It would take an affirmative change to law by both Congress and the President to make that happen.

Which leaves out the consequences of that position: if general revenues aren't used to cover the shortfall, Social Security and Medicare benefits have to be cut. That is, to be blunt, political suicide -- which is why Congress will likely have to start diverting general funds to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat for as long as possible.

If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.


What you're saying is that the problem has absolutely nothing to do with economics and unfunded liabilites and everything to do with politicians who are too chicken-shiat scared to make the tough decisions that we elected them to make. In other news, grass is green, water is wet, and Scarlett Johansson is a slammin hottie.
 
2012-05-21 12:34:00 PM

Serious Black: Scarlett Johansson is a slammin hottie.


I must respectfully disagree. Scarlett Johansson is far, far beyond "slammin'".
 
2012-05-21 12:36:17 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.

There are a dozen options besides "cut Social Security and Medicare".


Name them - because most of them are not politically feasible, won't generate enough cash to make enough difference or some combination of the two. Yes, you could raise the FICA cap - but that transforms Social Security into a transfer payment system, and won't make a huge difference. You could means-test benefits, but the same problem arises. You could turn seniors into a new food product called Soylent Green, but that's not realistic either.

Ten years ago we could have done something to fix Social Security, but the Democrats blocked it and the GOP never picked it up again. Now we're getting to the point where our options are dwindling.

The real underlying problem is that Social Security was never sustainable, but no one wants to admit that.
 
2012-05-21 12:38:02 PM

qorkfiend: Serious Black: Scarlett Johansson is a slammin hottie.

I must respectfully disagree. Scarlett Johansson is far, far beyond "slammin'".


On this, we have a rare moment of bipartisan consensus!
 
2012-05-21 12:44:11 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: Serious Black: Scarlett Johansson is a slammin hottie.

I must respectfully disagree. Scarlett Johansson is far, far beyond "slammin'".

On this, we have a rare moment of bipartisan consensus!


I wasn't sure exactly what adjective to use, but I will say that she's #1 on my list of five. Funny thing, my girlfriend actually has her on her list of five too.
 
2012-05-21 12:56:25 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.

There are a dozen options besides "cut Social Security and Medicare".

Name them - because most of them are not politically feasible, won't generate enough cash to make enough difference or some combination of the two. Yes, you could raise the FICA cap - but that transforms Social Security into a transfer payment system, and won't make a huge difference. You could means-test benefits, but the same problem arises. You could turn seniors into a new food product called Soylent Green, but that's not realistic either.

Ten years ago we could have done something to fix Social Security, but the Democrats blocked it and the GOP never picked it up again. Now we're getting to the point where our options are dwindling.

The real underlying problem is that Social Security was never sustainable, but no one wants to admit that.


cdn.thedailybeast.com
 
2012-05-21 12:58:05 PM
FTFA (because it needs to be constantly repeated):

"But point out to Republicans that it was under their watch and it was their policies that put us in the current economic condition, and the response will more often than not be something along the lines of "that's just the liberal pro-Obama media pushing the socialist president's agenda." Complete denial."
 
2012-05-21 02:24:19 PM

Cache: FTFA (because it needs to be constantly repeated):

"But point out to Republicans that it was under their watch and it was their policies that put us in the current economic condition, and the response will more often than not be something along the lines of "that's just the liberal pro-Obama media pushing the socialist president's agenda." Complete denial."


thisbearsrepeating.jpg
 
2012-05-21 02:40:32 PM

Serious Black: WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: If you want to argue that we should just start cutting Social Security and Medicare now to keep the program solvent over the long term, that argument may in fact be true, but no politician that ever wants to be reelected will call for that.

There are a dozen options besides "cut Social Security and Medicare".

Name them - because most of them are not politically feasible, won't generate enough cash to make enough difference or some combination of the two. Yes, you could raise the FICA cap - but that transforms Social Security into a transfer payment system, and won't make a huge difference. You could means-test benefits, but the same problem arises. You could turn seniors into a new food product called Soylent Green, but that's not realistic either.

Ten years ago we could have done something to fix Social Security, but the Democrats blocked it and the GOP never picked it up again. Now we're getting to the point where our options are dwindling.

The real underlying problem is that Social Security was never sustainable, but no one wants to admit that.


Exactly - no one in either party is going to cut Social Security - unless they have to. Even though neither program is fiscally sustainable, they're both incredibly popular, and supported by the group most likely to vote.

It's a real mess, and this generation is just beginning to feel the effects of its collapse. It will be the next generation that really suffers if it doesn't get fixed soon.
 
2012-05-21 03:22:43 PM
The river Denial?

/C'mon subby, get your head out of your ass.
//Denial river
 
2012-05-21 03:35:58 PM

ScouserDuck: The river Denial?

/C'mon subby, get your head out of your ass.
//Denial river


Or, just say "denial". We all get it.
 
2012-05-21 04:55:38 PM

WombatControl: The GOP has the unenviable position of having to be the adults in the room telling the rest of the political establishment that the old ways of doing things can't continue in the future.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-05-21 07:01:37 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: oldass31: Why do left-leaning people who're trying to make a point about the fiscal policies of the Bush administration, particularly the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, use the term 'unfunded wars'? It's so bland and clinical. I think if the tables reversed, the GOP would do a much better job of branding those wars. Possibly calling them the "credit-card funded wars" or something that strikes more nerves. Just a thought.

Because "unfunded" is an accurate term and "credit-card funded wars" is hyperbole. The federal government has been borrowing money to prosecute the wars rather than fund them with revenue generating measures specifically targeted at covering the cost of the wars but that's not like they took out a $1T line of credit at 18.5%.


Also, they wrote checks and IOUs; no plastic was involved in this transaction.
 
2012-05-21 07:04:23 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Nixon a free pass for Watergate.


F*ck Watergate, everyone is over that. It's time to destroy Nixon's legacy because of the expansion of the war on drugs... THAT is where his legacy should lie.
 
2012-05-21 07:26:18 PM

MFK: FTFA: "Democrats and Republicans both engage in questionable behaviors. For every example a Democrat has of Republican bad behavior, there are as many examples from Republicans of bad behavior on the Democratic side"

I'm sorry, but this is just not so. There are multiple bad examples, yes, but for the last decade and a half it has not been equal.

It's sorta like this:

On one hand you have a party that punches you in the arm. That's bad. fark the Democrats for punching you in the arm.

On the other hand you have a party that punches you in the nuts, shiats in your hair, claws out your eyes before feasting on your flesh. That's also bad. fark the Republicans for doing all that.

Both sides are clearly engaging in bad behavior but there's a bit of a difference. And that nuance is obscured over and over again by these journalists who crapping their pants in fear of being accused of being in the tank for Obama. Meanwhile, the party that actually DOES have media outlets blatantly in the tank for the GOP that lies and misdirects 24/7 a day with hubris.


Heh... The visual I use is one of the following:

"Choosing between Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between staying with a spouse who slaps you in the face on occasion, to a spouse who closed fist punches you in the teeth daily", or

"Comparing the harm caused by the Democratic party to the harm caused by the Republican party is like comparing a campfire to the Hindenberg".

/Special bonus snark: "if Obama advised American's against diving into the shallow end of the pool, the next day ER's across the country would be packed with Tea Baggeds suffering broken necks."
 
2012-05-21 08:41:10 PM

Linux_Yes: Republicans aren't in denial. they are perfectly happy narcissists who's only interest is themselves and their money.

the country be damned.


home.comcast.net
 
2012-05-21 09:26:18 PM

TheOther: Thanks for visiting carrollcountytimes.com. You're entitled to view 15 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have 8 remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription

omfg


The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel does the same thing which is too bad because it is a pretty good paper I would like to read for free.

/Or perhaps you are bemused by a bumfark paper doing it.
 
2012-05-22 06:53:16 AM
By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.

Did anybody point this out yet?
 
2012-05-22 10:25:27 AM
I am not honestly sure why people have such a problem with Social Security reform. First off it's not called government retirement system, it's a social security system for the poorest and least fortunate of us. I don't know why (barring major issues) I would ever need a Social Security check, and I think that is true for most families of middle class income or higher in the US today. We need to remember that this system was designed to give those people in the last part of their lives some dignity, not help you manage your retirement.

It's pretty simple really. Everyone should pay some amount of every dollar they make into the system, but only those with less than a specified amount of income/assets will be given money from the system upon 'retirement'. Ta-Da!!
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report