ariscus99

Very convenient. You don't care what they said then, but now, oh boy. He does have socialist style policies he'd like to bring forward. And he's surrounded himself with admitted socialist and communist, and people who are terrorist. So if someone calls him those things, it's not entirely surprising. If you hang out with a certain group of people it's quite likely you'll be associated and called whatever it is that they are ie liberals, conservative, gangster, rocker etc. etc.

"The Dyslexicon of George W. Bush" by Mark Miller is one. Dr. Jack Dresser, wrote several papers on the matter, as well as diagnosing President Bush with adult ADHD, without ever so much as meeting the man. Dr. Joseph Price also diagnosed him with pre senile dementia, again without ever meeting him. "The Superpower Syndrome" by Robert Lifton of Harvard also speaks about it. Justin Frank MD from George Washington Univ also wrote a book about it. Pretty extremist fringe people here, they have no influence on anyone to spread that nonsense it's not like they're college professors or anything, oh wait.

You felt the same way when Bush was attacked by the left and called so many names I can't recall them all, and dozens of books, newspaper and magazine articles were written about him, with no other purpose then to name call? Articles that claimed he had Downs syndrome, autism, etc. etc.? These all offended you as well right? Because they were baseless and Bush is American like the rest of us?

Why does someone saying something bad about the president offend you? Aren't people allowed their opinions of the president?

But had a white vice-principal sent those latino students wearing mexican flag tee shirts home, the ACLU would be all over that school, and this would be the top news story on every media outlet except Fox.

Wouldn't the president make up that little part of the government called the executive branch? Or am I wrong?

This administration is not the government? Well who is the government?

Where do I disagree with saying that everyone should pay a flat tax? Please enlighten me bobby because I read through that post about 3 more times and can't see anywhere that it says I don't think we should have a flat tax. It only states that we were tax at a specific rate, and promised that rate, and now we are taxed at a higher rate, hurting lower income people more. And as for cleo, did all four of your grandparents pay into social security or did they move here after 65 and start collecting? Because that is clearly the point of the statement in that post.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9] An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message. Our Social Security Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

What do you mean by this?

Oh, you mean the American way of allowing the free market to dictate what businesses survive and which fail, yeah, that would be horrible.

Take away their tax breaks and see what happens to the unemployment rate. Thats all I'm saying. I, like I've said before am in favor of flat tax for everyone and everything. Have absolutely no write-offs or loop holes, maybe separate rates for income differences but not much, and just tax any income, be it from working, inheritance, investment whatever, all be taxed at the same rate, we could change our 20 thousand page tax code to a two paragraph tax code and be done with it. But mark my words, if the corporate tax breaks go away, so do the jobs, because like I said before; the rich WILL have their money.

What do you really think would happen without this "corporate welfare" do you honestly believe the business owners would just take the hit and keep paying their employees the same amount? Or not take their companies to other countries? If you do you are flat out naive. Getting rid of the tax breaks for the huge companies would do nothing but destroy the middle class because the rich WILL make their money one way or another. Your for making things easier on the middle class, higher taxes on the upper class and on big business isn't the way that happens.

Why would the employees, especially in this example where they are talking about it to increase profitability, expect more money? The owner is doing it to make more money because of short coming that other companies are creating, not to make more money in her pocket, but to remain at the status quo, giving more to the employees doesn't facilitate that.

Wasn't the tea party mostly due to the whole "taxation without representation"? The tax cuts came because those merchants were friends with the British, and the others had no way of doing anything about it. Nowadays we have an elected government right, so if they don't do what we want we vote them out. The tea party movement is largely about getting rid of the representatives who aren't doing what they want, which is their right to do if they are a majority correct?

Lincoln, like every other politician ever, said many things he didn't believe to please the people he wanted support from, e.g. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [the crowd applauds] – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Abraham Lincoln.

general welfare=regulation?

I'll post this again, maybe you can come up with an answer: What part of the constitution or bill of rights or any other document our founders put together for us says it's the governments duty to regulate anything?

Where did I say eliminate all aid? Where did I say every single person on government assistance is a "slack-ass, lazy bum"? You say this over and over about me, and pattygreen, I don't read all she has wrote on here, nor do I support everything I have read of hers, but for you to decide that because I agree with her on somethings mean I agree with her on everything, or that I feel a certain way which I've never stated I feel nor do I feel, is quite juvenile, and frankly I'd expect more from such an educated person. I've stated how I feel about government "assistance" on these boards before, I'll do it again for the daft: Assistance should be just that. To help you out of a ruff time, once that time is over, you need to get off the welfare or whatever your on and get on with your life without gov't handouts. Senior citizens are a little different, they paid into SS and m-care throughout their lives, so while I don't feel the government should be in charge of these programs as they've ran them into the dirt. I don't want to take the old off of them as many of them have no way to create any income on their own, or anyway to pay for ins. Partly this is their fault for not investing and saving better throughout their lives. But that is neither here nor there. The baby making machines on welfare that I see on a daily basis are the ones I'm talking about, or the ones that go to POS doctors who put them on permanent disability for bs reason's and then mooch of the system for 40 or 50 years. The ones who are born poor and do nothing about it but continue the cycle and blame the system for their misfortune. These and those like them are the lazy bums who need to get out and be productive members of society and should receive no aid from anyone, they should be left to fail. This country was built and brought to greatness by the people of it, who worked hard, and did not make excuses, and made the best of every situation presented to them. They did not expect government assistance because it wasn't there. And they did not cry out about why the government wasn't there to help them, because they understood the governments place, and job, and it was not then, nor is it now their job to give handouts to people. I am okay with the occasional hand up but not for hand outs.

What part of the constitution or bill of rights or any other document our founders put together for us says it's the governments duty to regulate anything?

What part of the constitution or bill of rights or any other document our founders put together for us says it's the governments duty to regulate anything?

And the buck being passed to the little guy starts. From the AP

I thought obamacare was deficit neutral and not going to cost us anything? And hey, were gonna magically double our exports too so everything will be alright.

The only one not getting something is you. Facetious. Look it up. The premise of mandated auto ins. is just as ridiculous as mandated health ins. which would be the point of the thread. Obviously over your head. And please tell me; who is my leader? I'm gonna go ahead and say you have no idea, because you don't know what my political stance is.

Yup I noticed, you know how to be obnoxious online, good for you. It doesn't make you stance and ideals any more right, in fact it kind of makes them stand out like a stop light, screaming STOP. You want entitlements for everyone, I know, those sad poor people who corporate America and George W Bush hate, and you and obama love. They should all have what ever they want, I mean free stuff is their pursuit of happiness right, thats what the constitution says, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness via government entitlement programs for people who are either to lazy or unfortunate enough to not have things. I got it, thank you.