# So what do you haters think....?????



## GFR (Apr 15, 2006)

*So what do you haters think....????? Not that I care but I get a kick out of 3% of your posts the other 97% suck and are boring.*
 
*
House Bill HR 5152 Proposed to Grant Social Security Rights to Same-Sex Couples*
Last week, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced new legislation that would amend the Social Security Act to grant same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as legally married couples who pay into Social Security. 

According to The Advocate newsmagazine, "The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term 'permanent partner' to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms 'husband' and 'wife,' which are already present in the legal code." 


The Advocate continues, "Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do. Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers. " 

Congressman Nadler said in an April 10, 2006 press release, "Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to. The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry ??? but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all.... 
"I???ve heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don???t want to discriminate against the LGBT community. If they truly don???t want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it...." 


The proposed legislation has already attracted 17 co-sponsors in the House: Representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey.


----------



## Witmaster (Apr 15, 2006)

The solution is simple...

Dissolve Social Security.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 15, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *So what do you haters think....????? Not that I care but I get a kick out of 3% of your posts the other 97% suck and are boring.*
> 
> *
> House Bill HR 5152 Proposed to Grant Social Security Rights to Same-Sex Couples*
> ...



   

That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild. 

One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.  

Vote Republican.  They'll tell ya how to run your family.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 15, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.
> 
> One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.
> 
> Vote Republican.  They'll tell ya how to run your family.


----------



## fufu (Apr 16, 2006)

I think I don't want to read all that.


----------



## topolo (Apr 16, 2006)

I think the thread is gay


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

I saw the controversy over the White House easter egg hunt...where gay couples are busting their asses to get tickets to attend.  The White House stance is "all families are invited."  

How hypocritical is that?  Bush and the Republicans go out of their way to bash gays and now 'all families are invited.'  Gay marriage really energized the bigoted section of the republican base to vote this past national election.

These bigots--with the President at the forefront--want to amend the US constitution to ensure that gays can never marry and remain second class citizens.  The US constitution guarantees a US citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Seems fairly clear to me. 

But that's not good enough for some people.  Some people only really feel alive when they have their foot on the throat of another.  Believe me, these patriots would still be in the separate but equal camp if the civil rights movement died back in the 1950s.

Granting the right of marriage to gays would clear up all this 'back-door' political maneuvering (SS benefits to gay couples) to get to the same goal of equal rights.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Apr 17, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> The solution is simple...
> 
> Dissolve Social Security.


 
And Marriage (as a legal entity)!

If you want bennies for a "partner", whatever the sex...  You pay!

Same with bennies for dependants...  You want, you pay!

And give me my $4k every year dang'it, I won't get it back
as social security anyhow...

(I should be able to opt-out of social security anyway) -


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 17, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.
> 
> One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.
> 
> Vote Republican.  They'll tell ya how to run your family.


   Why would they tell kids to use contraceptives, then limit them.  This is rediculous.  TEENAGERS HAVE SEX.  They might as well accept it and try to cut the consequences from it, rather than attempting to supress hormones and naive thought of love.  I really wouldn't be surprised if they did issue a  sex permit.  Lol.


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 17, 2006)

mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united *to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife *in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law ???see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created 

There's the dictionary definition.  Gay's can't get married, so stop calling it "marriage."  Call it "gay handcuffing."  I agree that social security is a joke for more reasons than I have time to type.  And I also agree that marriage should probably just be recognized as a religious thing and not a legal one.  Don't give anyone special benefits.  I love the quote earlier though about trying to keep gays as "second class citizens" by not letting them marry.  Are all single people second class citizens then?  I think not. Read the "True Story #3 thread" for more info.  This bill is pathetic, but so is social security, republicans, democrats, the white house easter egg hunt, and the premise for the entire debate.  If you're gay, it's not marriage, just get your own word and then we'll work on your rights, but believe the heterosexuals, marriage usually sucks..........


----------



## GFR (Apr 17, 2006)

RCfootball87 said:
			
		

> mar·riage
> Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
> Function: noun
> 1 : the state of being united *to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife *in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law ???see also DIVORCE
> ...


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 17, 2006)

OK, time to throw a monkey wrench into the works...................I agree with you. 

Well, partly.


Marriage is a religious institution.  Invented by the Catholics I believe.  Therefore it should have no bearing on Social Security benefits.  Marriage should be decided by the church.  Social Security bennies should be decided by the government.  Kind of makes me wonder why the Establishment Clause crowd hasn't tackled this issue yet.


----------



## GFR (Apr 17, 2006)

*February 26, 2005

Gay Marriage: Ideology of Evil*
Did you realize that efforts to legalize gay marriage are part of a new "ideology of evil"? That's the judgment of Pope John Paul II in his most recent book. Apparently it isn't enough to categorize it with the "culture of death," so a new rhetorical phrase had to be found.


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

RCfootball87 said:
			
		

> mar·riage
> Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
> Function: noun
> 1 : the state of being united *to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife *in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law ???see also DIVORCE
> ...


Read the rest of your dictionary definition. Marriage is a legal fiction (any religious connotation is pure ceremony) that gives rise to some benefits in this country. One of which is tied to Social Security (esp. death benefits). Social Security is not 'pathetic' and our society is much better for it. 

The qualitative measure of fundamental constitutional rights in this country is the equal application of those rights to all Americans. Single americans of the opposite sex can marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Single gay americans are denied that right by the bigots in Washington. Your argument that the opposite of married is single therefore misses the mark entirely. The issue involves fundamental constitutional rights of americans and gay americans are being treated as second-class citizens.

Marriage can suck but, like life, it's what you make of it.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 17, 2006)

Marriage predates Christianity and is found in various cultures around the world that don't even have Christian, Jewish or Muslim influence.  The Romans invented the engagement ring.

But tas the Bible says:"Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women."(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

RCfootball87 said:
			
		

> mar·riage
> Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
> Function: noun
> 1 : the state of being united *to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife *in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law ???see also DIVORCE
> ...



Well, I agree that marriage sucks. . .and mostly because the state and the church already has too much of its snotty nose into the mess. But single people do have second class status in many instances - it can easily cost a couple of grand to get the legal papers together and approved to even start to approach giving someone you live with some rights over your health decisions and funeral services. The way the family laws are written, the State has more power than someone you breathe your last wishes to out of your lips on your deathbed, and if some distant cousin who hates you doesn't step in to exhume your body and move it somewhere THEY want, the State can step in and take everything and pretend the person you live with never existed.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *February 26, 2005
> 
> Gay Marriage: Ideology of Evil*
> Did you realize that efforts to legalize gay marriage are part of a new "ideology of evil"? That's the judgment of Pope John Paul II in his most recent book. Apparently it isn't enough to categorize it with the "culture of death," so a new rhetorical phrase had to be found.



  

I always respect such words of wisdom coming from a Pope who presided quite willingly over the deliberate coverup of child sexual abuse cases in the Church.


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Marriage predates Christianity and is found in various cultures around the world that don't even have Christian, Jewish or Muslim influence. The Romans invented the engagement ring.
> 
> But tas the Bible says:"Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women."(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)


You are wise beyond your years. I believe that section of the bible comes right after this one:

(The Book of Isaac 16:13-17 and Book of Stubing the intro)
Love
Exciting and new
Come aboard
We're expecting you


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Read the rest of your dictionary definition. Marriage is a legal fiction (any religious connotation is pure ceremony) that gives rise to some benefits in this country. One of which is tied to Social Security (esp. death benefits). Social Security is not 'pathetic' and our society is much better for it.
> 
> The qualitative measure of fundamental constitutional rights in this country is the equal application of those rights to all Americans. Single americans of the opposite sex can marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Single gay americans are denied that right by the bigots in Washington. Your argument that the opposite of married is single therefore misses the mark entirely. The issue involves fundamental constitutional rights of americans and gay americans are being treated as second-class citizens.
> 
> Marriage can suck but, like life, it's what you make of it.


Social Security, in its current form, no the idea, IS pathetic. Social Security, when it was passed, was never intended to provide complete financial security for all the elderly, nor to even be given out to all the elderly.  The idea was this : If an older person was so down on their luck and bankrupt that they were starving in the streets, the government would issue a small check from the social security fund, not enough to get an apartment and a car, but enough that this person could move in with a family member and at least not burden the family with their expenses.  That was it.  Not, "Wow I made it to old age, let's cash in on young people struggling to put gas in their Neon's even though we already drive a Cadillac."  I agree with the initial principle, it was a nice thought.  But that rates of it's application, and the amount it's costing people are outrageous.  And it's not going to adjust for inflation that's going to be caused by the rate at which our governement continues to print Fiat money.  And I'm never gonna see a god damn dime worth mentioning in comparison to what my portion could've amounted to if diverted to a Roth IRA starting at 16 when I got a job.  So yes, Social Security IS pathetic.  "We'll take your money and 'hold' it for you (like there's anything being held) since you're not responsible enough to invest for yourself, since we have the trillions of dollars in national debt that certifies us as economic masterminds"  Right......


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

RCfootball87 said:
			
		

> Social Security, in its current form, no the idea, IS pathetic. Social Security, when it was passed, was never intended to provide complete financial security for all the elderly, nor to even be given out to all the elderly. The idea was this : If an older person was so down on their luck and bankrupt that they were starving in the streets, the government would issue a small check from the social security fund, not enough to get an apartment and a car, but enough that this person could move in with a family member and at least not burden the family with their expenses. That was it. Not, "Wow I made it to old age, let's cash in on young people struggling to put gas in their Neon's even though we already drive a Cadillac." I agree with the initial principle, it was a nice thought. But that rates of it's application, and the amount it's costing people are outrageous. And it's not going to adjust for inflation that's going to be caused by the rate at which our governement continues to print Fiat money. And I'm never gonna see a god damn dime worth mentioning in comparison to what my portion could've amounted to if diverted to a Roth IRA starting at 16 when I got a job. So yes, Social Security IS pathetic. "We'll take your money and 'hold' it for you (like there's anything being held) since you're not responsible enough to invest for yourself, since we have the trillions of dollars in national debt that certifies us as economic masterminds" Right......


Nonsense. You will see every single thin dime promised to you. Of the three projections for benefits made by SS actuaries, the rosy scenario has the trust funding all benefits fully well into the 2nd half of the century. The medium projections show a slight shortfall that's easily fixable w/out raising taxes. The gloomy scenario, the one utilized by the Bush people for its privatization canard, shows a mild shortfall in benefits paid by 2043. In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there. 

No doubt SS was expanded beyond the original intent of providing retirement income from payroll taxes. But thanks largely to all 3 components, the retirement income, disability and death benefit portions of the current form of SS, we have less than 10% of our aged population living in poverty conditions. The idea of SS retirement income is that we won't have to wait until conditions for the aged are so desperate that they are forced into the streets as beggars or buying cat food to eat instead of making heating bill payments or rent. SS's spreading around of the costs of the aged, like insurance, has guaranteed thm a modicum of dignity in one's golden years.

If that pisses you off, then you should be absolutely livid over the annual raping of our governmental budget by defense contractors.

Fiscally speaking, SS is one of the most efficient and wildly successful governmental programs ever. The administrative costs come out to a little less than 1% of the total program's cost. Compare that to the 17-25% overhead of privatized insurance bureacracy.

Also, the pay-as-you go method of funding SS ensures that everyone that pays into it gets a benefit. Current payments pay current benefits. It is not a matter of the government 'taking your money and holding it for you.' That is not how it works.

*We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.* _Franklin Delano Roosevelt_




In short, you're wrong. SS is not pathetic. It's vital and effective.


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there.




Ah, ah, ah......let's play nice here.  Otherwise my experience might have to trump your conjecture. 


(The Thrift Savings Plan was introduced quite a few years ago as a choice for military personnel as a way to "suppliment" their retirement and has been working out VERY well for those who chose to participate.  )


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 17, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That'll be the day. . ."conservatives" thrive on persecuting others. And when that doesn't work, they persecute each other. It's all one giant wingnut S/M fantasy gone wild.
> 
> One of their latest pronouncements is that all condoms and other contraceptives should be kept under lock and key and customers made to ask a pharmacist or store manager directly for the product. . .ahhh...it won't be too long before they pass those laws requiring a sex permit and won't issue one until marriage.
> 
> Vote Republican.  They'll tell ya how to run your family.





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I saw the controversy over the White House easter egg hunt...where gay couples are busting their asses to get tickets to attend.  The White House stance is "all families are invited."
> 
> How hypocritical is that?  Bush and the Republicans go out of their way to bash gays and now 'all families are invited.'  Gay marriage really energized the bigoted section of the republican base to vote this past national election.
> 
> ...





I love reading stuff like this.  It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.

Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too.  The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum.  Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.

conservatives would support seperate but equal if it were still around


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Ah, ah, ah......let's play nice here. Otherwise my experience might have to trump your conjecture.
> 
> 
> (The Thrift Savings Plan was introduced quite a few years ago as a choice for military personnel as a way to "suppliment" their retirement and has been working out VERY well for those who chose to participate. )


Unfortunately, many people cannot contribute to TSP or 401k like deferred tax vehicles b/c they are hamstrung by the cost of living. SS was established as source of retirement income (and unemployment insurance) for the average american worker. Meaning that one did not have to rely on investment skills to gain a benefit--only payment of one's payroll taxes was necessary--or be part of a special workforce (armed forces). This type of social insurance is morally and economically defensible. The alternatives are not desirable. I mean why screw with something that obviously works. That's not to say refinement is out of the question.


----------



## Decker (Apr 17, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I love reading stuff like this. It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too. The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum. Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.
> 
> ...


It's very easy to see how you alienate people at this site. 

Feel free to debate me on the merits of social security. I'll be here all day tomorrow. But now it is 4:30 in Milwaukee and I'm going home. 

I'll see you tomorrow.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It's very easy to see how you alienate people at this site.
> 
> Feel free to debate me on the merits of social security. I'll be here all day tomorrow. But now it is 4:30 in Milwaukee and I'm going home.
> 
> I'll see you tomorrow.




I'd be more interested in debating your groundless generalizations, such as 'these people would support seperate but equal...'


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, many people cannot contribute to TSP or 401k like deferred tax vehicles b/c they are hamstrung by the cost of living. SS was established as source of retirement income (and unemployment insurance) for the average american worker. Meaning that one did not have to rely on investment skills to gain a benefit--only payment of one's payroll taxes was necessary--or be part of a special workforce (armed forces). This type of social insurance is morally and economically defensible. The alternatives are not desirable. I mean why screw with something that obviously works. That's not to say refinement is out of the question.



Yep, agree 100%.  But, the way I understand it was going to work for the American public was the same way it worked for military personnel, completely voluntary.  Those that could/wanted to contribute were allowed to.  Those that couldn't/didn't want to, didn't have to.  Again, from what I've seen, those that chose to contribute are VERY happy. 

Truth in advertising note:  I didn't participate because I was too close to retirement to contribute a worthwhile amount.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I mean why screw with something that obviously works.





I'll admit, I haven't exactly done days of research on the subject.  However, from what I can glean just from keeping my ears open Social Security doesn't 'obviously work,' in fact it is far from it.  In fact, aren't there plenty of signs that say SS is failing, and that people entering the work force now have a 0% chance of seeing any money upon retirement unless the system is completely overhauled?  

Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government.  Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me.  If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?  

of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 17, 2006)

let gays get married....give them the tax benefit.

Its not even an issue for me.  I am completely apathetic to the situation.  I would probably abstain from voting on it..  It directly affects less than 2%-3% of the population.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I love reading stuff like this.  It just reassures me that the US will elect another conservative in 2008, because of the ultra-vocal minority of whackos that are in the liberal party.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their whackos too.  The only difference is our whackos are in the back woods makin moonshine and humping their sister, occasionally one will get a public forum.  Your whackos are in the forefront of every political debate, stigmatizing the shit out of your party.
> 
> conservatives would support seperate but equal if it were still around



 

I think the joke is on the wingnuts. . .and how about this little tidbit:


_And listen, I should add, to the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative mouthpiece the Washington Times and self-proclaimed Messiah. *Moon's warning to America is that we must have sex the way he entreats us, in the positions he has designated, or else forfeit our "love organs,"* as he dubs them, to the dark lord Satan.

*We all know the Right wants to decide what we can't do in the bedroom. But no one ever seems to ask what the Right wants us to do instead.*

*"After the act of love," read the instructions from the Rev. Moon's conservative Family Federation, "both spouses should wipe their sexual areas with the Holy Handkerchief. Hang the handkerchief to dry naturally and keep them eternally. They must be kept individually labeled and should never be laundered and mixed up."*

Maybe the best explanation of our widespread ignorance of the Washington Times owner's sex rites is liberal squeamishness. For those of you who suckled on secular humanism and feminist tracts (which Moon calls Satanic, by the way), these prescriptions from God might seem as off-putting as a Castro Street postcard storefront to Dr. James Dobson.

But in order to usher in a national dialogue on faith in the public square, it's important to look beyond stereotypes of the Right to understand the diverse philosophies behind public movements for state-enforced morality.

Rev. Moon, whose Washington Times is a crown jewel of the conservative media Death Star, offers the essential lessons. He's the last man most Americans would associate with Republican power circles, but is in his own secretive way as important a figure in the Christian Right as Jerry Falwell, who's still in business thanks to a $3.5 million bailout from Moon in 1995, or Tim LaHaye of the Council For National Policy, who took money to serve on the board of a group rehabilitating Moon's image, and once wrote a letter addressing Moon as "the Master." 

Just how big is Moon's standing in the Right? The "Republican Noise Machine" is a mighty edifice built with $3 billion in gifts from various right-wing philanthropists. Moon's gift of the Washington Times to the conservative cause alone places him in the club as a charter member; the paper owes its existence to a staggering figure of over $2,000,000,000 since 1982 in donations in Moon's mystery money._

http://www.alternet.org/story/34072


Ahh...vote Republican. They'll tell you how to raise your family.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 17, 2006)

what's the point?


Wackos are wackos... on both sides.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

That wacko is one of the biggest financial supporters of the Republican Party and is a personal friend of the Bush family. . .


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 17, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That wacko is one of the biggest financial supporters of the Republican Party and is a personal friend of the Bush family. . .



It must be a conspiracy!!

Just like how all the conservatives want to bring back segregation and outlaw birth control!!


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

How did you guess? Why, it happens to be Reverend Moon himself - darling benefactor of the Republican Party, who once said that blacks could take care of their skin color difference by moving to the Arctic for a few generations. . .

And conservatives have already started making their pronouncements that contraceptives should be kept under lock and key in the stores and there be only abstinence education in the schools. Kansas is grappling with that very issue right now, along with several other states. . .


Ahh...vote Republican. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 17, 2006)

And as an added bonus, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced new guidelines for organizations seeking grants to fund abstinence only-education programs. 

"Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.html

Guess those gays who can't get married have to spend their lives never having sex. . .  And you single dudes, well, get with the program - no sex until marriage. Another step closer to issuing sex permits. . . 

"Throughout the entire curriculum, the term "marriage" must be defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 


And these are only the official Administration's FIRST steps. . .

Vote Republican! They'll put Jesus back onto your penis where He belongs!


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 17, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Nonsense. You will see every single thin dime promised to you. Of the three projections for benefits made by SS actuaries, the rosy scenario has the trust funding all benefits fully well into the 2nd half of the century. The medium projections show a slight shortfall that's easily fixable w/out raising taxes. The gloomy scenario, the one utilized by the Bush people for its privatization canard, shows a mild shortfall in benefits paid by 2043. In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there.
> 
> No doubt SS was expanded beyond the original intent of providing retirement income from payroll taxes. But thanks largely to all 3 components, the retirement income, disability and death benefit portions of the current form of SS, we have less than 10% of our aged population living in poverty conditions. The idea of SS retirement income is that we won't have to wait until conditions for the aged are so desperate that they are forced into the streets as beggars or buying cat food to eat instead of making heating bill payments or rent. SS's spreading around of the costs of the aged, like insurance, has guaranteed thm a modicum of dignity in one's golden years.
> 
> ...


First off, let me start by saying I'm glad I can debate someone without name calling and having a flame war.   Secondly, I'd have to double check your numbers but I really don't trust the gov't with my money.  And yeah, the program is defendable from a moral standpoint, but I still think it's a little socialist to have the gov't control your retirement income.  
"If that pisses you off, then you should be absolutely livid over the annual raping of our governmental budget by defense contractors."
Let me answer that by saying this: I'm too scared to read the number on Bush's "defense" spending  (defending who?  Iraqis? Not me......) I think if I did, it might drive me to camping myself outside the white house and protesting for the duration of his time in office.  I wish he'd get removed from office.  They couldn't even censure him without people throwing a fit. I guess what I'm saying is, whether or not the money will be there, I personally could've done better through personal investment, as I consider myself disciplined enough to get it done.  Maybe enrollment should be optional, and decided by a certain age?


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 17, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government.  Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me.  If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?
> 
> of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.


Possibly the only statement you've ever made that I whole-heartedly agree with.    Listen buddy, I think you're heart is in the right place, but your vote isn't.  George Bush is not going to reduce the size of the gov't.  This was never his intention.  George H Bush was considered a liberal-republican as a vice presidential candidate, to offset Reagan's so called staunch conservatism.  His son fools farmers, hunters, blue-collar workers, and the like into thinking he's for smaller gov't, and he indentifies with the "common man". Bullshit.  He's a dumbass rich kid who was given almost everything he has.  Believe me, he's not shrinking gov't  (the military, wiretapping, the "patriot act" etc. proves all this)  I'm not saying vote liberal, that won't help.  I honestly believe this country is doomed, but you might as well go with an independent or something, because if a candidate receives at least 5% of a presidential popular vote, he get's funding after the election.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I'd be more interested in debating your groundless generalizations, such as 'these people would support seperate but equal...'


Of course I speculated with that conclusion. Comparing one form of bigotry to another is fair game. Isn't it?


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I'll admit, I haven't exactly done days of research on the subject. However, from what I can glean just from keeping my ears open Social Security doesn't 'obviously work,' in fact it is far from it. In fact, aren't there plenty of signs that say SS is failing, and that people entering the work force now have a 0% chance of seeing any money upon retirement unless the system is completely overhauled?
> 
> Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government. Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me. If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?
> 
> of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.


Your ears hear right-wing propaganda. It's no wonder you think SS is 'broken'. They've been lying to you for so long that you don't know what to believe. For facts look to the annual statement of SS actuaries and not GWB or Hannity. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ Look for the annual report b/c Bush et al. have already infected the sight with some privatization crapola.

For conclusions, well, that's why I'm here. As I've pointed out before, you will see every penny of SS benefit you're due. IF any private company had the resources and liquidity of SS, it would be considered a monumental success.

SS is not a retirement plan per se but rather a social insurance plan which guarantees income therefore viability of what is generally a vulnerable class--the elderly. All taxation is not confiscatory. I know most so-called conservatives believe all taxation is confiscatory but that's just mindless demagoguery. Taxes are a necessary part of the social contract. Like it or not, government is necessary to civil society and the services provided by government are funded through collective revenue contributions or taxes.

Which brings us to your point about opting out of SS. Society, _as a whole,_ benefits from SS by lifting some 13 million senior citizens out of poverty on an annual basis. SS is 'cheap' compared to the attendant costs of having 13 million poor old people degrade into a state of malnutrition, homelessness, physical/mental degradation requiring medical care, so you see SS is a pre-emptive strike against a sea of misery expenses. And you want to opt out of something as effective as this b/c you don't like Big Government? Like I said, there will always be Big Government...it's necessary to civil society. Does that mean surrender one's vigilance in controlling it? No. Be reasonable.

SS security is a pay-as-you go system w/ current payroll taxes funding current benefits. Reagan raised payroll taxes to cover any future funding problems. The money (and excess) needed to pay current benefits is kept in a trust fund. Thanks to LBJ, he unified the budget to syphon SS funds to pay for the Viet Nam war. The practice of borrowing from SS by irresponsible politcians is disgusting. President Clinton left office with our country soundly in the black. Bush had the opportunity to use the fruits of Clinton's sound fiscal policy to pay the bonds held in the SS trust. Instead he pissed it away on irresponsible tax cuts and proposed a half-baked privatization scheme that guarantees benefit cuts and enrichment of Wall Street money managers at everyone else's expense. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy--Bush exacerbates the problem then offers up a snake oil solution.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 18, 2006)

I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:

conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible

liberals would rather conclude that people cannot survive without government control.




honestly, what makes you think people cannot plan for their own retirement?  I mean, you can drop all the theoretical lecture about the social contract and taxes being necessary.  Obviously taxes are necessary in any society that wants a government; the point is not whether taxes are necessary but rather how much government is necessary and consequently, how much tax is necessary.

answer me this: if social security benefits the people who supposedly cannot afford a 401k, then why not make it optional for anyone who has a 401k?  

The answer is that the system is fucked, the government DIDNT save the money they took from the first payers of social security (what a surprise).  They spent it.  That was the plan behind social security, not helping the poor, but finding an immediate source of extra money.  Now the US is stuck in this system because they need current payers to give money to current recipients.  If they had saved the original money, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

The government is the largest, most inefficient, and most corrupt organization in any society throughout history.  If I want to save my money and invest it as I see fit, I should be able to do that.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:
> 
> conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible
> 
> ...



The Great Depression


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:
> 
> conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible
> 
> liberals would rather conclude that people cannot survive without government control.


I think reasonable people conclude that some people need help to get by in this country. If SS keeps 13 million elderly out of poverty every year, does that mean they are all freeloaders. SS is not investment sensitive (the vagaries of the Market don't affect it). Depend on yourself? I'm sorry but the very nature of historical society is that we stand on the shoulders/achievements of others. Does this mean you can do all these things by yourself too:

Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
Public roads.
Rural electrification.
Government subsidized telephone wiring.
Satellite communications.
Police protection.
Military protection.
A criminal justice system.
Fire protection.
Paramedic protection.
An educated workforce.
An immunized workforce.
Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
Student loans.
Government funded research and development.
National Academy of Sciences.
Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Public libraries.
Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
National Biological Service.
National Weather Service
Public job training.
There would be no free market if not for the above tax subsidized services.  i.e. freedom isn't free


			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> honestly, what makes you think people cannot plan for their own retirement? I mean, you can drop all the theoretical lecture about the social contract and taxes being necessary. Obviously taxes are necessary in any society that wants a government; the point is not whether taxes are necessary but rather how much government is necessary and consequently, how much tax is necessary.
> 
> answer me this: if social security benefits the people who supposedly cannot afford a 401k, then why not make it optional for anyone who has a 401k?


B/c in system of shared benefits, there are shared burdens. You benefit immensely from not having 13 million seniors in poverty but you don't want to pay for it. You make a good point about how much tax is necessary. That's a moral question. We've already answered it by imposing a nominal progressive income tax rate. The rich pay more. True SS is funded by a flat tax (though the medicare tax is not capped at $95,000) but morally it is worth it. For old people, for the disabled, for the widowed etc. To me, these are the last people in our country that should feel the sting of budgetary cuts. You obviously feel otherwise.


			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> The answer is that the system is fucked, the government DIDNT save the money they took from the first payers of social security. They spent it. That was the plan behind social security, not helping the poor, but finding an immediate source of extra money. Now the US is stuck in this system because they need current payers to give money to current recipients. If they had saved the original money, we wouldn't be in this predicament.


The system is pay-as-you-go so I would hope the government spends the money as it comes in. The corrupt politicians spent the excess in an ignoble way. That's why we as vigilant citizens must call them on it.


			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> The government is the largest, most inefficient, and most corrupt organization in any society throughout history. If I want to save my money and invest it as I see fit, I should be able to do that.


Yeah, some government is corrupt--especially the Bush administration...look to where the gov. farms out work to private businesses and you'll find more corruption than anywhere. Does that sound familiar? Bush and co. have 'privatized' gov. services more than any other administration in history. Is that why there's no surprise that billions 'disappear' from these corrupt fucks? http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

On the other hand some Gov is much more efficient than the private sector, take SS for instance, the administrative costs are less than 1% annually. Compare that w/ private sector insurance companies--17-22% administrative costs or those of Chile--20-30%(depending on which #s you look at) for its privatized version of SS.

Look, WE are the government. We must be vigilant to the governmental operations executing We the People's will.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Does this mean you can do all these things by yourself too:
> Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
> Public roads.
> Rural electrification.
> ...



Are you a highschool government teacher?  No offense, but you have this habit of explaining and elaborating on what is commonly accepted and understood.  I already said taxes and government were necessary, I don't need a list of the services the government provides to convince me of a point I have already stipulated to.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> B/c in system of shared benefits, there are shared burdens.



In other words, the government should assume that people cannot plan for their own retirement.  We should make a mandatory retirement plan, which takes money out of people's pay checks on top of taxes and prevents them from investing that money in their retirement themselves.

your shared benefits and burdens analysis is a little off.  I should share the burden of financing someone's retirement so that I can share in the benefit of not financing their retirement?  They are one in the same.  How about the alternative, the government stays out of it, and let people plan their own retirement?




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The system is pay-as-you-go so I would hope the government spends the money as it comes in.



The point was that the government didn't take the money of the first people to pay social security, and invest it, and give it back to them when they retired.  That is how the system should have worked.  Instead, they took the money and spent it on whatever tickled their fancy, and now we are stuck in a never ending cycle of unneccessary government intervention. 

And don't get on a high horse and say that I don't care about the elderly because I don't believe in social security.  I choose to assume that people can't invest in their own future, you chose to assume that they can't.  If anything, you are the one degrading the elderly by assuming that they are all mindless idiots in need of big brother to tell them how to live.


----------



## brogers (Apr 18, 2006)

My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS: 

Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!

Why?  Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....


----------



## brogers (Apr 18, 2006)

as for gays, I don't think they deserve an endorsement of their lifestyle like biologically correct, normal married couples do.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

Are 13 million elderly simply idiots needing SS to avoid the poor house?  The world needs ditch diggers too.  50% of americans do not own 1 share of stock.  America as a whole has a negative savings rate.  1/2 of the people out there are below the average intelligence quotient.  So I suppose my answer is, "Yes" some people need a helping hand in organizing/managing/financing their affairs.  Is that so difficult to see.  Some people need help.

That's a baseline.  You are free to go as high as you please.  Just leave the helping hand of gov. to those in need and pay your damn taxes.  You can assume all you want about the virtues of 'everybody getting out of the cart and pulling it' but that's just starry-eyed dreaming.  The fact is, is that we have a segment of society that's not fully competent requiring gov. assistance.  I don't like that brute fact either but it happens to be true.

If I get pedantic about the role of taxation in our society it's only b/c I like to hear myself talk and people generally forget those facts and attribute any of their own successes to mere individual accomplishment.

Supplementing the population's retirement staves off much more costly things that will happen down the road absent that supplement.  How is that the same thing?  Pay a little now up front or pay a shitload later.

Investing in one's future is fine.  But that also leaves open the possibility of losing one's investment.  It happens.  That's why SS is funded w/ gov. bonds and practically risk free.  SS is not a wealth creating enterprise--it never was.  It's a safety net.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 18, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS:
> 
> Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!
> 
> Why?  Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....




Exactly.

Assume that I am a savvy investor, and I turn a large profit on my own investments.  Say at an inflation rate of 4%, my profit is an average of 12%.  The money the government so wisely invested for me comes back at a rate of 5% profit, so ruffly the same as inflation.  Is the government going to give me the 7% difference?  Of course not.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Are 13 million elderly simply idiots needing SS to avoid the poor house?  The world needs ditch diggers too.  50% of americans do not own 1 share of stock.  America as a whole has a negative savings rate.  1/2 of the people out there are below the average intelligence quotient.  So I suppose my answer is, "Yes" some people need a helping hand in organizing/managing/financing their affairs.  Is that so difficult to see.  Some people need help.
> 
> That's a baseline.  You are free to go as high as you please.  Just leave the helping hand of gov. to those in need and pay your damn taxes.  You can assume all you want about the virtues of 'everybody getting out of the cart and pulling it' but that's just starry-eyed dreaming.  The fact is, is that we have a segment of society that's not fully competent requiring gov. assistance.  I don't like that brute fact either but it happens to be true.
> 
> ...




So what about the question you keep avoiding:  why not let SS be optional for anyone who invests a certain amount in their own 401K?

SS gets paid to everyone, even the millionares.  Why not let the system apply to those who don't invest in their own well being, and let the people who want to be independant do so?


----------



## SuppAddict (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Assume that I am a savvy investor, and I turn a large profit on my own investments.  Say at an inflation rate of 4%, my profit is an average of 12%.  The money the government so wisely invested for me comes back at a rate of 5% profit, so ruffly the same as inflation.  Is the government going to give me the 7% difference?  Of course not.



why would they give you 5% if you made 12%? is it taxed?


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS:
> 
> Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!
> 
> Why? Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....


See my post above about a certain segment of our society managing their own affairs...they are less than competent.

Are individuals in the gov. of the same intellect and competence as the bottom 1/2 of our country?  Not really.  

Gov. workers have accountability and standards--look at any annual report from any agency.  The SS trust fund is not open to speculative investment.

Other than those things, your post is right on.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> So what about the question you keep avoiding: why not let SS be optional for anyone who invests a certain amount in their own 401K?
> 
> SS gets paid to everyone, even the millionares. Why not let the system apply to those who don't invest in their own well being, and let the people who want to be independant do so?


I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:

Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.

On the larger question of why no opt out, that's why I gave you that list of things that taxes pay for. The moral of that story is that we are individuals and a society all at once. One cannot pick and choose how one's tax dollars are spent b/c of disagreement. If that were so, I'd pay only 1/2 my income taxes to reduce defense spending. The old need help so they get help. The SS system retains a contribution in and benefit out arrangement to preserve dignity in work...even for the ditch diggers who couldn't possibly fund their own retirement through personal savings.

It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:
> 
> Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## brogers (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.


 
It has lost tons of money..  it just isn't manifesting itself yet(because the current generation is picking up the tab), it isn't a sustainable program, I thought this was highly publicized?

People have to be responsible for themselves.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Well said.


Thanks DOMS.  The tensions btn acute individualism, responsibility and societal obligations are always fun to look at.  It is so easy to go overboard either direction.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> It has lost tons of money.. it just isn't manifesting itself yet(because the current generation is picking up the tab), it isn't a sustainable program, I thought this was highly publicized?
> 
> People have to be responsible for themselves.


It hasn't lost tons of money and it is eminently sustainable...just ask any actuary. You are correct, the unsustainability and fragile state of SS has been highly publicized. That doesn't mean it's correct. Those statements are propaganda. 

One big selling point of privatization was it's rate of return. 

"a landmark paper co-authored by economists Olivia Mitchell, a member of the President Bush???s Commission to Strengthen Social Security and a supporter of private accounts, John Geanakopolos, and Stephen Zeldes found that ???the popular argument that Social Security privatization would provide higher returns for all current and future workers is misleading, because it ignores transition costs and differences across programs in the allocation of aggregate and household risk.??? The paper states: ???A popular argument suggests that if Social Security were privatized, everyone could earn higher returns. We show that this is false.???["

Like I said before, SS is not a wealth creating program, it's a safety net. It's as conservative a financial arrangement as one could get and still realize a rate of return. No money in the mattress here.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Thanks DOMS.  The tensions btn acute individualism, responsibility and societal obligations are always fun to look at.  It is so easy to go overboard either direction.



Like most things in life, it's a balancing act.  Ensuring that different points in a system must be in agreement to initiate action helps to prevent extremism (in all things).

That's why the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances.  Yes, Bush is one fucked up individual, but he's only one third of the system.  Simply put, it's not just that Bush is fucked up, it's that the (vast) majority of politicians are fucked up.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Like most things in life, it's a balancing act. Ensuring that different points in a system must be in agreement to initiate action helps to prevent extremism (in all things).
> 
> That's why the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances. Yes, Bush is one fucked up individual, but he's only one third of the system. Simply put, it's not just that Bush is fucked up, it's that the (vast) majority of politicians are fucked up.


Exactly. It's off topic a bit but the fastest way to fix that corruption is public financing of elections. Remove the temptation from these weak individuals/politicians to play to special interests. That's really what is going on when we speak of corruption...how can politicians do the will of the people if they serve the private interests of lobbyists in the pursuit of holding on to office?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 18, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> as for gays, I don't think they deserve an endorsement of their lifestyle like biologically correct, normal married couples do.



There is nothing biologically correct or normal about marriage. It's a heterosupremacist-created institution.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Exactly. It's off topic a bit but the fastest way to fix that corruption is public financing of elections. Remove the temptation from these weak individuals/politicians to play to special interests. That's really what is going on when we speak of corruption...how can politicians do the will of the people if they serve the private interests of lobbyists in the pursuit of holding on to office?




One interesting aspect of that is when we have a candidate who refuses to accept PAC money, is for term limits, and will not accept contributions from any special interest group, they can't win public office. I was just reading about such a candidate in Missouri running for Congress in the Republican primary against Roy Blunt, a notorious GOP PAC-infested incumbent. 

Problem is, the candidate is transgendered and county Republican officials contend that with her "background" (which includes being a Navy vet) she won't be elected.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> _*There is nothing biologically correct*_ or normal about marriage. It's a _*heterosupremacist*_-created institution.



I see you've taken you ball and decided not to play with reality anymore.

It's people like you that give gays a bad name.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 18, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I see you've taken you ball and decided not to play with reality anymore.
> 
> *Marriage was created as a man-made institution of control. That's reality. Pretending that it is biological is fantasy, unless you can explain to us that your peepee only gets hard over one person for eternity.*
> 
> ...



No, it's people like you who give gays a bad name - just like everyone else who you call the boogeyman because it's easier than looking into the mirror.


----------



## Decker (Apr 18, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> One interesting aspect of that is when we have a candidate who refuses to accept PAC money, is for term limits, and will not accept contributions from any special interest group, they can't win public office. I was just reading about such a candidate in Missouri running for Congress in the Republican primary against Roy Blunt, a notorious GOP PAC-infested incumbent.
> 
> Problem is, the candidate is transgendered and county Republican officials contend that with her "background" (which includes being a Navy vet) she won't be elected.


Transgendered and running for political office in the Show Me state...great.  

We need to eliminate the PACs and all other private forms of influence--I'll try to forget that the Sup. Ct. ruled that money spent on elections = free speech--and have all federal elections subject to public funding only.  Let the ideas clash and rule the day.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 18, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:
> 
> Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.
> 
> ...



And yet that still doesn't explain why paying social security is mandatory for someone with a good 401k.

The bottom line is that social security is the governments way of ensuring that people don't become insolvent when they are old and place the burden of their health care on society.  Yet social security is a burden on society, and it is a unwarrented governmental intrusion for the vast majority of adults who are capable of planning their own retirement.

Social Security should be mandatory for anyone who doesn't put a certain amount per year into a 401k.  The government should not be taking money out of my paycheck for a retirement plan that is substantially less profitable than your average investment.  This is even assuming the fact that I will actually recieve SS, which many well educated scholars say is impossible.


----------



## RCfootball87 (Apr 18, 2006)

Let me clarify something, mainly for Decker: I agree that MOST people are not compitent or capable of handling their own retirement planning. However, I believe that there's got to be a better solution than mandating that the government distribute the money.  I don't know what this solution is, but I suppose that with all the Ivy League grads in our Senate and House, we should be able to come up with something......


----------



## maniclion (Apr 18, 2006)




----------



## BigDyl (Apr 18, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

>



True Story


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 18, 2006)




----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> And yet that still doesn't explain why paying social security is mandatory for someone with a good 401k....


Only employers can start a 401k plan; an employee cannot. Only about 37% of private employers have a 401k plan. It's not the answer. 

As I've said regarding opting out of SS, there are Sup. Court cases that state quite clearly that individual citizens cannot pick and choose the taxes they wish to pay.

As a society we have decided that SS is in our best interest. As a member of this society you cannot opt out of the deal simply b/c you think you could do better on the rate of return for your own personal gain. The payroll tax money you pay for SS is not your money. It is The People's money. You view SS as an "unwarranted gov. intrusion" only The People of the US disagree. Like it or not, you have to play ball.

You are still thinking in terms of wealth creation. No doubt a 401k plan is a tax deferred shelter designed to create wealth. SS is more in line with insurance b/c of its design and its irrelevance to the vagaries/performance of the stock market or like indices. You are comparing apples (401k) w/ oranges (SS).


----------



## SuppAddict (Apr 19, 2006)

social security tax is bs
why do i have to pay  so much when i won't see any of that money?
we have to support people who have kids and can't afford them (welfare), healthcare (medicare) and we have to support retired people with social security now


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> As I've said regarding opting out of SS, there are Sup. Court cases that state quite clearly that individual citizens cannot pick and choose the taxes they wish to pay.




I've heard this a number of times and it still confuses me.  Maybe you can put it into terms I can understand.  If all of our taxes were lumped into a single Federal tax I'd understand, but they're not.  There's a Federal Income Tax and then there the Social Security whitholding.  They're witheld seperately.  It wouldn't be as though I weren't making my contribution to all the other social programs and the cost of running the government, that comes from my income tax $$$.  If I were independently wealthy and had already made arrangements for my golden years and didn't want to contribute to the SS fund, why should I have to?  Yes, I understand that "shit happens" and my nest egg may get scrambled.  That's the chance I'd be willing to take.  But I firmly believe that should be MY choice, not the government's.  Please explain.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> As a society we have decided that SS is in our best interest.


Yep, and as a society we have decided that George W Bush should be president.  That doesn't mean I can't point out that mandatory social security is a stupid idea, and a unneccessary government intrusion IMO, just like it doesn't mean you can't think Bush is an idiot.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> I've heard this a number of times and it still confuses me. Maybe you can put it into terms I can understand. If all of our taxes were lumped into a single Federal tax I'd understand, but they're not. There's a Federal Income Tax and then there the Social Security whitholding. They're witheld seperately. It wouldn't be as though I weren't making my contribution to all the other social programs and the cost of running the government, that comes from my income tax $$$. If I were independently wealthy and had already made arrangements for my golden years and didn't want to contribute to the SS fund, why should I have to? Yes, I understand that "shit happens" and my nest egg may get scrambled. That's the chance I'd be willing to take. But I firmly believe that should be MY choice, not the government's. Please explain.


In the beginning, the creation of SS was subjected to heated debate. The conservatives of the day (circa 1935) wanted a pay-as-you-go system so that the program would not turn into a drag on Fed. income tax. So the payroll tax was created. Fast forward to the 1960s. The war in Viet Nam was going badly yet LBJ was still expanding it. To conceal the true costs of the war, LBJ unified the federal budget to include SS income and borrowing. The program is a separate program but the accounting was screwed with.

Prior to SS 35-40% of our elderly lived in poverty. As a country, we decided that was unacceptable and created SS. Al you cannot pay your payroll tax simply b/c you don't care for SS or believe that you can do better with private investments. There're multiple court decisions saying so. 

The payroll tax you pay today pays today's benefits for seniors. The monies in the trust fund are invested in gov. bonds not subject to loss on the market and supported by the "full faith and credit" of the US gov.--ultra safe.

When you get old and retire, the workforce at that time will fund your SS benefits. It's a transgenerational agreement that binds our collective work and well-being.  

Sorry if that's a bit verbose.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 19, 2006)

I just ate a chicken salad, it was pretty good.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Yep, and as a society we have decided that George W Bush should be president. That doesn't mean I can't point out that mandatory social security is a stupid idea, and a unneccessary government intrusion IMO, just like it doesn't mean you can't think Bush is an idiot.


I get your point. But what do you do w/ the 13 million old people that need SS to stay out of poverty? Do you pull SS from them just so you can see a bump in your take-home pay? 

Instead of going after the elderly to save a buck we should attack the corrupt defense spending or congressional earmarks that eat up the national budget. Then we can get a decent sized and responsible tax cut from those savings while still caring for our elderly.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I just ate a chicken salad, it was pretty good.


Was it really mayonnaisey?


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I get your point. But what do you do w/ the 13 million old people that need SS to stay out of poverty? Do you pull SS from them just so you can see a bump in your take-home pay?
> 
> Instead of going after the elderly to save a buck we should attack the corrupt defense spending or congressional earmarks that eat up the national budget. Then we can get a decent sized and responsible tax cut from those savings while still caring for our elderly.


 
There is a difference between criticizing the idea of SS and wanting to end it.  Obviously it would be completely unfair to just stop paying people who have paid into it their entire lives.  You could keep paying them, and just say SS is over, but the money has to come from somewhere.  The money would have to come from taxes, so essentially that is just saying that the people paying now still have to pay but will recieve no benefit.  It is just a cycle that the government can't get out of, making it all the more a shitty idea IMO.

I don't think we should be cutting defense spending right now.  Didn't Clinton make huge cuts in defense spending?  And then right after he left office....

Anyway, I saw this thing on the news about an art program the government thought deserves tax payer support.  The artists were painting religious figures covered in feces.  Maybe we should start with programs like that.  Admittedly it isn't a lot of money individually, but I am sure collectively there are tons of programs like that which add up to a sizable chunk of change.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

and on top of that, I am for downsizing the government all-together.  It has grown enormous, bigger than anyone ever could have imagined.  The problem is that the government decides how big the government will get, kind of a conflict of interest if you ask me.


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> In the beginning, the creation of SS was subjected to heated debate. The conservatives of the day (circa 1935) wanted a pay-as-you-go system so that the program would not turn into a drag on Fed. income tax. So the payroll tax was created. Fast forward to the 1960s. The war in Viet Nam was going badly yet LBJ was still expanding it. To conceal the true costs of the war, LBJ unified the federal budget to include SS income and borrowing. The program is a separate program but the accounting was screwed with.
> 
> Prior to SS 35-40% of our elderly lived in poverty. As a country, we decided that was unacceptable and created SS. Al you cannot pay your payroll tax simply b/c you don't care for SS or believe that you can do better with private investments. There're multiple court decisions saying so.
> 
> ...



Verbose?  YOU?  Wow, I never would have noticed.  

Anyway.  OK, you reminded me of the multigenerational nature of the program.  I'd forgotten that aspect.  That fully answers most of my question.

I'm still fuzzy on one aspect though.  When you were citing LBJ's maneuvering, did you say they're two seperate witholdings that, in reality, go into the same pot?  (I'm converting to layman's terms obviously.)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Was it really mayonnaisey?



A chicken salad, as in a salad with chicken on it.  Although you now hAve me hungry for chicken salad.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

mayonnaise must be the nastiest substance that people eat.  I won't even put mayo in my tuna, I use mustard.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I don't think we should be cutting defense spending right now.  Didn't Clinton make huge cuts in defense spending?  And then right after he left office....
> 
> *When the defense budget is $457 billion and equals almost the total amount of money spent on the military by almost every other nation on earth combined, it might be considered a bit paranoid and extreme. If we cut the WASTE from the defense budget we might get a lot more bang for the buck.*
> 
> Anyway, I saw this thing on the news about an art program the government thought deserves tax payer support.  The artists were painting religious figures covered in feces.  Maybe we should start with programs like that.  Admittedly it isn't a lot of money individually, but I am sure collectively there are tons of programs like that which add up to a sizable chunk of change.




Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *When the defense budget is $457 billion and equals almost the total amount of money spent on the military by almost every other nation on earth combined, it might be considered a bit paranoid and extreme. If we cut the WASTE from the defense budget we might get a lot more bang for the buck.*
> 
> Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.


 
You sir, are an idiot.

Why don't you explain to all of us how not funding something equates to censorship?

And it would make sense to me that our military is the most expensive, seeing as it is the most advanced.  If you don't want to be a world superpower, there are plenty of other countries that share your view.  Of course, they don't have our economy either, now do they?


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 19, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.



Oh crap, we're gonna get off topic here. 

I think you might be oversimplifying it just a bit.  No flame intended, just moderation.  Government funding of art programs has been controversial for a very long time.  The works cited were a hot button issue that had nothing to do with the orignal argument.  And, it is by no means censorship.  It was never proposed to be outlawed.  The only proposal was to stop funding for programs that fell WAY outside of the government's pervue, such as art.  The logic: "if the art is any good, it will support itself.  If it's not, it will go away."  Sounds like simple supply and demand capitolism to me.  Something that usually works.................until the government tries to fix it. 

Now, you're ripping of the faith based initiatives seems a bit unfair also.  The programs, as originally envisioned, would put the power/resources of communitites to work to help themselves.  This would relieve the government of some of this burden, thus costing the taxpayers less.  Seems like a good plan to save government money.  Not sure where the 700 Club or Moonies come into the picture, but I'm sure you were just exagerrating for effect, right?


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

It seems like you could also justify abstinence education in the same was SS was justified here, that is to say that even if you don't agree with it, it is cheaper than the alternative of just paying for the babies of insolvent teenagers.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> ...And it would make sense to me that our military is the most expensive, seeing as it is the most advanced. If you don't want to be a world superpower, there are plenty of other countries that share your view. Of course, they don't have our economy either, now do they?


If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california?  Clinton didn't gut the military though he did cut some funding.  The waste from corruption in the defense budget is legendary...much of the money is for overcharges, inferior products/services, or outright theft by private defense contractors.

I gotta get back to that other thread w/ the guidos.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Verbose? YOU? Wow, I never would have noticed.
> 
> Anyway. OK, you reminded me of the multigenerational nature of the program. I'd forgotten that aspect. That fully answers most of my question.
> 
> I'm still fuzzy on one aspect though. When you were citing LBJ's maneuvering, did you say they're two seperate witholdings that, in reality, go into the same pot? (I'm converting to layman's terms obviously.)


Al if you ever saw Rainman and the scene where there's an idiot savant talking about the history of the pony express--well, I'm like that minus the savant part.  SS was originally off the federal budgetary books and subjet to its own accounting.  LBJ did away w/ that.  Now the budget is "unified" so that more unscrupulous politicians can plunder any reserves in the SS trust.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> You sir, are an idiot.
> 
> *Is that the best you can do? I suggest you carefully examine your own analytical credentials before you start attempting to make personalized remarks. Is it possible for a wingnut to engage in conversation without having to hide behind crap?*
> 
> ...




The military is expensive because we overspend on contracts - which way too often have the ante upped on them before the goods are delivered. Then we have to offer bonuses for patriotic Republicans to actually serve in the field. One of the reasons Dear Leader has tried to use more private contractors is to curtail some mismanagement of funds in the Pentagon - of course, Halliburton hasn't proven itself to be a better taxpayer investment.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Oh crap, we're gonna get off topic here.
> 
> I think you might be oversimplifying it just a bit.  No flame intended, just moderation.  Government funding of art programs has been controversial for a very long time.  The works cited were a hot button issue that had nothing to do with the orignal argument.  And, it is by no means censorship.  It was never proposed to be outlawed.  The only proposal was to stop funding for programs that fell WAY outside of the government's pervue, such as art.  The logic: "if the art is any good, it will support itself.  If it's not, it will go away."  Sounds like simple supply and demand capitolism to me.  Something that usually works.................until the government tries to fix it.
> 
> Now, you're ripping of the faith based initiatives seems a bit unfair also.  The programs, as originally envisioned, would put the power/resources of communitites to work to help themselves.  This would relieve the government of some of this burden, thus costing the taxpayers less.  Seems like a good plan to save government money.  Not sure where the 700 Club or Moonies come into the picture, but I'm sure you were just exagerrating for effect, right?



No, the programs put the power of specific, government-approved religious "community" programs to work to proselytize to others. Republicans have already passed legislation allowing these same taxpayer supported "initiatives" exemption from federal non-discrimination employment laws, meaning they only have to hire people of their own "faith" while on the federal dole. Essentially that is government endorsement of religion, since churches which the current government doesn't agree with can't get funding. The Moonies can... naturally. . .but the United Church of Christ isn't getting any. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> It seems like you could also justify abstinence education in the same was SS was justified here, that is to say that even if you don't agree with it, it is cheaper than the alternative of just paying for the babies of insolvent teenagers.



Since I am obviously much older than you, I can recall how every town of any significant size had several orphanages and a "baby" facility where unwed mothers were "sent" to wait out their pregnancy and have the child taken away from them. Obviously, abstinence-only plans didn't work very well, even in the heavily censored married-television-couples-sleep-in-separate-twin-beds days of American culture.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Government support of religious institutions is not constitutional. Funding for artistic development is cultural and encourages free expression, even if conservatives believe that expression outside the Party is in itself evil and should be curtailed.*


 
And yet that has nothing to do with explaining how not funding something equates to censorship...


----------



## DOMS (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california?



Because, thanks to some bleeding hearts, we have the most powerful army in the world...that's now touchy-feely.  We should have simply gone over there are started killing until they couldn't fight back, then smoke 'em if you got 'em, and went home.  

Now we have to worry about hurting people's feelings during a war...


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california?


 
Decker, are you really going to say that the US military isn't the most advanced in the world?

We can and will secure Iraq, it takes time.  How long did it take to obliterate the Iraq army?  Not long.  Insurgents don't exactly wear uniforms, though they will eventually be killed in due course.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Because, thanks to some bleeding hearts, we have the most powerful army in the world...that's now touchy-feely. We should have simply gone over there are started killing until they couldn't fight back, then smoke 'em if you got 'em, and went home.
> 
> Now we have to worry about hurting people's feelings during a war...


I don't think anyone wants to obliterate a country that didn't attack us.  I don't think opposition to mass murder is touchy-feely.


----------



## Decker (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Decker, are you really going to say that the US military isn't the most advanced in the world?
> 
> We can and will secure Iraq, it takes time. How long did it take to obliterate the Iraq army? Not long. Insurgents don't exactly wear uniforms, though they will eventually be killed in due course.


Technologically, you bet.  Strategically and politically--not even close.  GWB is the cmdr in chief of the military.  Look at how he's bungled Iraq.  What good is a state of the art weapon in the hands of a monkey?


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 19, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Al if you ever saw Rainman and the scene where there's an idiot savant talking about the history of the pony express--well, I'm like that minus the savant part.  SS was originally off the federal budgetary books and subjet to its own accounting.  LBJ did away w/ that.  Now the budget is "unified" so that more unscrupulous politicians can plunder any reserves in the SS trust.




Now, now.  Don't call yourself an idiot..............................that's my job.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> And yet that has nothing to do with explaining how not funding something equates to censorship...




First you would have to show that the government specifically provided funding for that particular project, and it wasn't a part of an overall grant for artistic expression. If it was a grant, and you advocate certain "exclusions" to that artistic funding, that constitutes government censorship.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If it was a grant, and you advocate certain "exclusions" to that artistic funding, that constitutes government censorship.



No, it doesn't.  Not by any means.  If someone is free to express themselves, yet simply doesn't recieve a paycheck from the government, that is censorship in your eyes?  I guess the government is censoring this conversation then, aren't they?

For the record, I don't think the government should be paying people to paint pictures of anyone covered in feces.  I am not sure the government needs to be taking money from the working man to pay someone else to paint, no matter what they are painting.  People are free to paint, and if they are good they should be able to make some money.

I guess that is liberal america for you, cut spending on national security so that we can pay people to draw pictures.  Hey, I just wiped my ass and called it art, can I get a pay check please?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't.  Not by any means.  If someone is free to express themselves, yet simply doesn't recieve a paycheck from the government, that is censorship in your eyes?  I guess the government is censoring this conversation then, aren't they?
> 
> Actually, the owner of the web site can censor this conversation. Where exactly is that part of a "conservative" brain that has an inherent disconnect?
> If the government offers a blanket grant for arts development, and then turns around and limits the "approved" expression based on your personal or religious point of view, that is an attempt to censor expression. This is where conservatives seem to have a major disconnect - and perhaps a good explanation is when they demand that certain books (like the two male penguins who raised a penguin chick) be removed from the children's shelves of a library because (even though it's a childrens book and a true story) the idea of parenting (even like that show "My Two Dads" or "Full House") "offends" certain people. In the conservative mind, that point of view takes automatic precedent over all others, but it isn't censorship because someone can still WRITE the book - they just can't sell it or put it in places for the intended audience to READ it.
> ...



Actually, it's far too easy for "conservatives" to dismiss everything they don't like as "liberal" America. Except the list of wingnut sexual offenders continues to grow - the latest one being a deacon in the Baptist church being caught in a police sting in a city park soliciting a police officer. 
As for national security, at some point this country needs to ask itself why it is necessary to be so paranoid of the rest of the world that we absolutely need to spend three - five times as much as the next level of world power on "security." Our national borders aren't in Afghanistan and they aren't in Iraq or Iran. They aren't in Israel. And judging from our initial lame reaction to 9/11 (where were our jet fighters?) and our inability to protect our own southern border - hell, we can't even patrol the 90 miles between Havana and Key West enough to catch all the boat people, just what kind of "security" are we getting for that $457 billion?


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

People like you are too partisan to even talk to.  Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:

*I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

*That means you can drop the shit about pat robertson, the 700 club and anything else having to do with religion.  I agree the government shouldn't be involved in sponsoring religion.

Is that clear, or am I going to have to say it again?


Now, if you are saying the military is inefficient, and we could be getting more bang for the buck, I would agree.  The military is a branch of the government, so you can expect it to be inefficient.  If you want to downsize the military, I would disagree.

I would especially disagree with downsizing the military while we are paying people to finger paint.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> People like you are too partisan to even talk to.  Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:
> 
> *I AM NOT RELIGIOUS
> 
> ...




Go read a bible, church boy.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions.  I know you aren't, but suck it up.  I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions.  I know you aren't, but suck it up.  I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.



Just because kbm doesn't agree with the current admin, it does not equate to him liking Clinton.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> People like you are too partisan to even talk to.  Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:
> 
> *Spare me the nonsense.*
> 
> ...




If our military is incapable of defending our borders and acting as support in national crises within those borders, it doesn't have enough personnel. But it certainly has enough money. This country has no constitutional provision to arbitrarily invade and occupy foreign nations at will or on the basis of constructing an empire - our own history in the last century shows the fallacy of having too many entangling alliances. We were unable to protect our own territories during World War II and left Hawaii virtually naked to a Japanese invasion. We lost the Phillippines, Guam, many of our mandated Pacific Islands, and two Aleutian Islands because we didn't have the men or material to defend official territories and protectorates of the United States. That is the only responsibility of the U.S. military and it shouldn't require $457 billion  a year to accomplish.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 19, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions.  I know you aren't, but suck it up.  I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.



I wouldn't bet on that working man being very happy with anything this Administration has accomplished. President Bush has not had an approval rating above 50% in 15 months - in the last three months, there have only been four states in the country in which over 50% approve of his performance. The Republican Congress is even worse off. And in many states where Republicans have been running all three branches of government, approval ratings for the Party have slipped. The governor of Ohio has managed to recover - slightly - from an 8% approval rating to 18% - the worst performance in the country. A culture of corruption. 

Those same working men paid close attention when the American Taliban demanded that President Bush dump Harriett Miers for the Supreme Court - and the President caved. And he couldn't appoint Alito without having them pre-screen the selection and approve of him before any of the representatives of the Senate got to interview the man. 

By the way, Clinton, even with a blowjob deception scandal, never had approval ratings below 40% for nearly a year.


----------



## KelJu (Apr 19, 2006)

Kbm8795 and Clemson257's arguments could easily keep the US better informed of what is going on in politics, better than Oreilly, Hannity, Ingraham, Limbaugh, Savage, and Boortz combined.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 19, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Clinton, even with a blowjob deception scandal, never had approval ratings below 40% for nearly a year.



and who the fuck cares? 

if 'my party' is run by the religious, your party is run by those who would like to pay for sex change operations of state employees with tax payer's money, as they do in san fransisco.  given a choice between the two, I'll stick with the conservatives.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 20, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> and who the fuck cares?
> 
> if 'my party' is run by the religious, your party is run by those who would like to pay for sex change operations of state employees with tax payer's money, as they do in san fransisco.  given a choice between the two, I'll stick with the conservatives.



That I'd be real interested in seeing the research about. But actually, at this point, the smart thing for a tranny to do - after those "marriage" amendments are passed, is to sue the state for a sex change operation claiming the only way to meet the requirements for equal protection is to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. The trannies can probably mount a pretty convincing case, given the over 1000 special rights reserved for straights. 

Now what rights are religious people, who we all know choose their lifestyle and their prejudices and can also change them whenever they like, being denied?


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 20, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> But actually, at this point, the smart thing for a tranny to do - after those "marriage" amendments are passed, is to sue the state for a sex change operation claiming the only way to meet the requirements for equal protection is to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. The trannies can probably mount a pretty convincing case, given the over 1000 special rights reserved for straights.


Actually, the smartest thing for a transexual to do would be to get therapy, but thats just my opinion.

Funny you should bring up equal protection, though your phrasing suggests you don't completely understand it.  There is no 'requirement' for equal protection under the law, everyone recieves equal protection.  And in this case, there are no rights reserved for straight people.  The government (and society, as Decker would point out) define the boundaries of a legally cognizable institution: marriage.  Marriage comes with certain benefits, as does other legal institution such as guardianship, employer/employee status...etc.  Everyone in the country gets the same rights with respect to those institutions, in the case of marriage, any adult in the country can get married.  You can't marry someone of the same sex, regardless of whether you are straight or gay.  Equal protection is just that, protection; it isn't defined in terms of 'wants.'  Thus, you do not have an equal protection claim just because you 'want' to marry someone of the same sex.  You have been afforded the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry.  To say that the government (and society) cannot define the boundaries of a specific legal institution is ridiculous.

The government defines the boundaries of the employer/employee relationship, and they provide certain protections for that relationship, such as statutory protection against discrimination.  You can't go walking down the street and get discriminated against by just anybody and bring an employment discrimination suit; they must actually be your employer.  Is it an equal protection claim for me to sue the goverment for not allowing me to define who my employer is, regardless of whether I actually work for them?  No.  The government has the right to define what is and isn't an employment relationship for purposes of employment protection.  The government (and society) correspondingly can define what is a marital relationship for purposes of marital protection.  Just because you want something outside the definition of marriage to be included doesn't mean you have an equal protection claim, so long as you have been provided equal access to what actually constitutes marriage.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 20, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Actually, the smartest thing for a transexual to do would be to get therapy, but thats just my opinion.
> 
> *Why would you even feel qualified to have an opinion about that subject?*
> 
> ...



Residence in a state is not an employment contract, unless you wish to look at the state government as the employee of the people. And marriage is certainly not the same as an employment contract. 

The definition of marriage has been evolving for centuries. Either there is an inherent harm beyond "I think it's icky for THOSE people to marry" or there isn't.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 20, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Why would you even feel qualified to have an opinion about that subject?*


Because I live in the real world, and in the real world when someone wants to have their genitals surgically turned inside out, it is safe to say they may be in need of a little therapy.  Second, I said it was an opinion, correct me if I am wrong but people are still free to have opinions aren't they?  Or do you think the government is censoring opinions because they don't pay people to have them?




			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> And this is based on the Equal Protection Clause, no doubt.


It is, actually.  

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution:  _"...nor [shall the state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."_

It doesn't say, 'nor shall the state deny to any person who meets certain requirements equal protection of the laws.'


I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get done with with my work.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 20, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Because I live in the real world, and in the real world when someone wants to have their genitals surgically turned inside out, it is safe to say they may be in need of a little therapy.  Second, I said it was an opinion, correct me if I am wrong but people are still free to have opinions aren't they?  Or do you think the government is censoring opinions because they don't pay people to have them?
> 
> *While your attempt at sarcasm is almost admirable, perhaps you need to be reminded that you only live in clemson357's little world. You really have no basis for an opinion on that matter - unless you'd care to cite experiences or materials that provide you with insight. Interestingly enough, people who are born with only partial genital development have often been assigned their gender by a doctor, not by how they were born. Those operations and decisions made at birth have also caused identity confusion as a child grew older - the therapy required was one which helped them come to terms with who they really were - not what the doctor prescribed them to be at birth. The baby doesn't receive "therapy" or have any say in those decisions.*
> 
> ...



Ok. I've got another class to teach.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 20, 2006)

kbm, I have to ask if your post is opinion, are you just making things up, or do you think this is actually the law?  Notwithstanding, you have several things completely wrong.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> * The rights to marriage have long been recognized as HUMAN rights - not constitutional ones, meaning the choices of intimate relationships are supposed to rise above the interference of the state and the law. *


Marriage, originally, was recognized as a religious union, not a human right.  Regardless, I don't know what a HUMAN right is, unless you are referring to abstract concepts of 'natural rights' that aren't recognized in any legal sense.  You might have a natural right, in some philosophers mind, to kill the person who rapes your wife, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished under the legal system.  

Marriage, in the sense that it exists for purposes of US law, is a legal institution that is recognized and specifically defined.  You might have some other form of religious 'marriage' that has nothing to do with filing papers or recieving rights from the state, but that is a seperate idea.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *When the state requires that individuals surrender their right to make that choice without proving any inherent harm, that is certainly a violation of their rights to equal protection. *


 Interesting wording here, though I don't know how you 'surrender' something that you never had.

Anyway, you do actually have a 'freedom of association,' which is a First Amendment right which precludes the government from telling you who you can and can't sleep with, spend time with...etc.  That, however, does not mean you have a constitutional right to redefine any legal institution in anyway you see fit, as 'your choice,' and recieve the corresponding rights that go along with it.  


			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Moreover, the state has no constitutional foundation to declare that "marriage" between two members of the opposite sex is the only avenue in which to seek equal statutory protection for events which are individual experiences in life. *


I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean, or how it relates here.  The government isn't precluding other means of achieving the same result, that I know of.  For instance, in marriage the state recognizes community property.  There are other means of achieving the same legal result, such as joint tenancies, or tenancies in common.  I don't know where you would get the idea that the government is saying that marriage is the only avenue to get certain rights, such as property rights, which can be actually be had through other legal means.


			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Health decisions, life arrangements, property dispersal, and funeral/burial arrangements are clearly defined as areas where the State has limited health risk interest in the private decisions of individuals - yet the attempt to pass constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage is actually an attempt to force those who cannot marry or choose not to marry to construct other means to only partially protect their legal rights to control events in their individual lives. *


I read this several times, and I think it might form an actual thought, but I am not sure.  What is a 'health risk interest in private decisions?'  The government regulates certain things, like where you can bury a body, or how property is distributed in the event that someone dies without a will, but I don't know that those are 'health risk interests.'  Anyway, those things can be decided and contractually agreed on between people outside of marriage.  For instance, someone can set up a trust of $1,000 and specify that this money is to be used to bury John next to Jim with a joint headstone reading 'forever in love.'  Also, anyone can write a holographic will relatively no trouble whatsoever.  I don't know that there is a constitutional right to have the state recognize a scheme of property distribution for you in case you die without a will, in any event, isn't it easier just to write a will?  As far as health decisions go, people can draft legal instruments specifying how it is to be handled if they end up like Terry Schiavo, or presumably who is to make the decision.  


			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *And let me make something else clear here - the State does not afford the "right" to marry - Supreme Court decisions for decades have made it rather clear that the State is only allowed to interfere in personal choices when it can PROVE that there is an inherent harm to society. Conservatives have been unable to prove any inherent harm with same-sex marriages, though they desperately attempt to create research (which is usually quickly debunked) in order to support their contention and provide the State with some legitimate reason to deny those statutory protections. The State can only define marriage along certain guidelines in which it can prove harm - not simply because the neighbors don't "like" it or their corner church thinks it is sinful.*


This is completely backwards.  The Supreme Court has recognized a 'right of privacy' in personal choices having to do with one's own body.  Thus, the government cannot tell you that you can't sleep with a someone of the same sex.  

I don't know that any court has ever construed a right of privacy to mandate State's rewriting the definitions of legal institutions to correspond to anyone's whim.



I think you can make the argument that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples, but I don't think you can make the argument that existing law prohibits government and society from defining legal ideas such as marriage (or employment rights).  Things have to have definitions, that is the nature of the world.  Marriage, conventionally, has been defined as being between two consenting adults of opposite genders.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 20, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Ok. I've got another class to teach.




I didn't read all of the convo... but for some reason... I've gotta say...


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> kbm, I have to ask if your post is opinion, are you just making things up, or do you think this is actually the law?  Notwithstanding, you have several things completely wrong.
> 
> *Have you read any Supreme Court cases involving these applications? Highly personal relationships are seen as a critical buffer between the individual and the power of the State. That's why a wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court.*
> 
> ...



*Existing law prohibits the State from making unreasonable demands on one group of citizens simply because another group "doesn't like them." "Conservatives" don't like that idea. The definition of marriage has changed numerous times over the years, and the idea of "consenting adults" is not grounded in tradition. Tradition was that marriage was a family arrangement, often involving dowries, almost always involving approval of the Church or arranged by the parent, even if the child was an emancipated adult. There is nothing historically conventional about two consenting adults of the opposite gender being the test for marriage competence. That is a relatively modern concept and consent is not automatic. And things don't have to possess definitions which exist forever, particularly when it is obvious that they do not adequately or equitably serve all members of society. *


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 21, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> *Have you read any Supreme Court cases involving these applications? Highly personal relationships are seen as a critical buffer between the individual and the power of the State. That's why a wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court.
> 
> **Nonsense. Marriage did not originate as a religious union. Its roots are in pagan cultural custom. . .which may have some spiritual components. No church owns marriage.*


You know, it doesn't appear as if you are actually trying to have a logical conversation here.  Everything you are writing appears to be flowing off the top of your head rather than based in anything that is actually law or fact.

Yes, I have read lots of Supreme Court decisions having to do with all sorts of applications, including privacy rights, freedom of association, and the fifth amendment.  A wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court, that is true.  This is an extension of the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, rather than any imaginary right of 'highly personal relationship buffers.'

And I didn't say that the church owns marriage.  Where did you get this?  Are you just making things up?  And pagan beliefs are religious beliefs, so I guess you just agreed with me.

I may or may not wade through the rest of your compilation of fabrications later tonight.  If I do, it will only because I am EXTREMELY bored.  I don't think it will do any good though, as I can already see you are proceeding with your argument as if I didn't say anything at all.  What is a 'human right?'  Where is the legal authority for this?  Is there a Bill of Human Rights in the Constitution, seperate from the Bill of Rights that I am familiar with, or are you just depending on imaginary rights to support your argument?

If I do decide to respond further, can you do me a favor?  Try to stop being so extremely partisan.  I am sure you are correct that SOME conservative would like to get right of the right of privacy, though I hardly see how blanket generalizations are relevant.  I could proceed with the rest of my argument in a similar fashion, making the generalization that liberals would like to distribute the morning after abortion pill in Middle Schools using tax payer dollars, though I hardly see how that would be productive.  Obviously generalizing this belief to all liberals is false.


----------



## GFR (Apr 21, 2006)

*Intermission







*


----------



## Decker (Apr 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Intermission*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That intermission hits hard. I gotta get home...to the wife.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 21, 2006)

"Maul the pussy."


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> You know, it doesn't appear as if you are actually trying to have a logical conversation here.  Everything you are writing appears to be flowing off the top of your head rather than based in anything that is actually law or fact.
> 
> *Uh. . .I haven't seen you post a single legal citation. Are you borrowing someone else's head?*
> 
> ...



Nice try, but I haven't seen that "liberal" policy in print anywhere. However, I've read lots of wingnut policy pieces constantly arguing that there is no right to privacy. They wanted rightwing activist judges precisely for that reason. Hey. . .vote Republican.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

Try Griswold v. Connecticut (381 US 479 - 1965) - marriage. . ."is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma) 312 US 535 (1942) - marriage is a "basic civil right of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The right to marry derives from the right to privacy:  Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (414 U.S. 632 - 1974).  The Supreme Court declared that "it has long recognized that freedom of *personal *choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment."

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (468 US 609 - 1984). . .freedom of association extends to "certain kinds of highly personal relationships" that "*act as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State*."


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 21, 2006)

WHat do you teach, KBM, and where?


----------



## GFR (Apr 21, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> *WHat* do you teach, KBM, and *where?*


He teaches your mom how to swallow....at your house


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 21, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> He teaches your mom how to swallow....at your house




True Story, and now I pass down to you what I have been taught.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 21, 2006)

Griswold v. Connecticut - holding unconstitutional a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptive.

_"We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of *husband and wife* and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."_



Loving v. Virginia - Virginia statutes preventing marriages between persons solely on basis of racial classification are unconstitutional.

_"...the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."_

Notably, racial distinctions are subject to strict scrutiny, and homosexuals get rational basis.



Cleveland Board of Education v. Cohen - Mandatory school board rules requiring pregnant school teacher in one case to take maternity leave five months before expected birth of child and in the other case at least four months prior to expected birth of child denied due process since arbitrary cut-off dates had no valid relationship to state interest.




 Roberts v. United States Jaycees - The Minnesota Department of Human Rights of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on basis of sex in ???places of public accommodation,??? to Jaycees by ordering them to admit women to its local chapters in Minnesota is not unconstitutional.



FYI, the holding of a case usually is noted by an intro like "We hold here" or "Justice Brennan holds..."  Every literal sentence appearing in a case doesn't constitute law.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 21, 2006)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a holding that says the State cannot define marriage as between two people of opposite genders.

And if that is your opinion, maybe you can explain to us whether or not the State can define marriage as between two people.  After all, it is a *personal* choice, as you so aptly pointed out.  What if someone's personal choice is to marry two women?  Or a man and a woman?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Griswold v. Connecticut - holding unconstitutional a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptive.
> 
> _"We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of *husband and wife* and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."_
> 
> ...



*Gee...no kidding. *


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 21, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> WHat do you teach, KBM, and where?



This is just a guess, but I would think he teaches law, if anything.  Either an introduction to law class at some public highschool, or a Constitutional law class at some fourth tier law school.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 21, 2006)

Anyway, I am going to have to go ahead and exercise my 35th amendment right to stop participating in this pointless conversation.  You will find that right in the 'Bill of Human Rights,' added to the Constitution in the year 2197, Article 5, Section 9, Amendment 35.

I figure as long as we are making up rights, I might as well exercise mine...


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a holding that says the State cannot define marriage as between two people of opposite genders.
> 
> *Do you see holdings that insist the State is required to define marriage that way?
> 
> ...



A typical rightwing argument which doesn't pass muster. Instead of the Right, which claims the State has the right to "police" marriage, asking "why are murderers, child sexual abusers, rapists, wifebeaters and adulterers allowed to marry?" Does the State not have a compelling interest in preventing someone who violated their marriage vows from marrying again? Does the state not have a compelling interest in arbitrarily dissolving the marriages of people who commit violent crimes against their families? Instead, they rush right to the outer limits in an attempt to dehumanize the gays. You know, the old "people will marry their dogs and their box turtles". . .a rather nice way of dehumanizing the rights of human beings (who we claim have equal rights) as they petition to redress grievances that we KNOW are true. Same-sex couples  are not "single" people, and they can't enter into even common-law marriages in those locations where they still might exist. And the State still can't provide a basis for that denial.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am going to have to go ahead and exercise my 35th amendment right to stop participating in this pointless conversation.  You will find that right in the 'Bill of Human Rights,' added to the Constitution in the year 2197, Article 5, Section 9, Amendment 35.
> 
> I figure as long as we are making up rights, I might as well exercise mine...



That would be a very typical thing for a wingnut to do. But you missed the 34th Amendment, which stripped all Republicans of declaring themselves exclusive beneficiaries of special rights.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Apr 21, 2006)

Ahhhhhrrrgggghhh

Too much text


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 21, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> This is just a guess, but I would think he teaches law, if anything.  Either an introduction to law class at some public highschool, or a Constitutional law class at some fourth tier law school.




  . . .wrong on both counts.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 22, 2006)

back to the original topic of giving gays the right to their partners ss benifits. sounds legit to me i dont have a problem with it.

i do think ss security is doomed however. im 25 years old and i do not expect to see ss when i retire. i dont mind paying it however as i believe we should take care of our elderly and that is the system unfortuneately too many baby boomers relied on for their support.

and abstinence is effective. ive not gotten an std or had an illigetimate child yet


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 22, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> . . .wrong on both counts.




I give up, what do you teach?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 22, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I give up, what do you teach?



I teach people not to give Foreman Rules two more beers after he squints his eyes, looks over and says "I'm horny."


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 22, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> I teach people not to give Foreman Rules two more beers after he squints his eyes, looks over and says "I'm horny."


you wise, wise, wise individual


----------

