Official Stop OBAMA Express!!!

Because "right now " the liobs are "leading the charge"

You're a complete waste of time   you'll never get it through your thick skull that liberals are not dictating policy or are in any way "leading the charge"  because libs are in the majority

Do you even proof read yourself.  So early you said that I'm stupid if I think the libs are running the country and now you are saying that I'll never get it through my thick skull that liberals are not dictating policy or are in any way "leading the charge" because libs are in the majority.

You seem to even be in disagreement with yourself.  Not surprising.  Libs are walking contradictions afterall.

And if I'm a "complete waste of time" as you say...why don't you stop wasting your precious time then?  I don't need your attention.  I'll be perfectly content with you ignoring me.

Imagine how much better things could have been for this country if 401Ks were introduced instead?

sloner, why do you intentionally ignore the real reason for Social Security?  It is not a retirement plan but a safety net for everyone.  Misfortune can happen anytime.  Some will never be able to invest enough.  You look at SS as a plan just for you and not for everyone.  If you are looking in life - make good money, avoid diseases, avoid accidents and not have some serious downturns as you retire (retiring in August of 2008) - then you could have a better retirement than SS would provide.  SS is an insurance for those who are not so lucky.

SS would have been nice if the government could have kept their hands off of it

so, you are now calling SS a bad program because both dems and repubs used IOUs to pay for other things.  That is not the SS program fault.  Over the years, there have been changes to SS, mostly to keep it solvent.  We changed the rate in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s.  Nothing has been done since.  So reform to SS is necessary and there are plans that are out there that will work.

SS is an insurance plan and not a retirement plan.

sloner, why do you intentionally ignore the real reason for Social Security?  It is not a retirement plan but a safety net for everyone.  Misfortune can happen anytime.

It's still a stupid idea.  Has anyone heard of an "emergency fund" or "rainy day fund"?  Why does the irresponsible government need to be "responsible" for citizens that don't know how to live within their means and establish their own savings?  People these days are way to "LIBERAL" with their spending and then they expect the "LIBERAL" government to "BAIL THEM OUT".  This bail stuff has got to stop.  When are people going to learn to live with the consequences that their lack of fiscal discipline creates?

Some will never be able to invest enough. 

If they able bodies that are making more on welfare and food stamps don't get a job but what do they care...they have daddy government to keep them going.  No need to be a responsible adult.

You look at SS as a plan just for you and not for everyone. 

Actually no I don't.  I look at SS as a huge drain on people that create their own "emergency funds" and "retirements" not because they are rich but because they know how to live within their means.  You should tell the people that are living "solely" off of SS that the plan isn't just for them.  It is now though because THEY didn't plan for retirement.  I know people well into their 40's who haven't even thought about starting a 401K and have no savings to speak of for emergencies...yet have a decent house and a bunch of really nice cars.  Sounds like irresponsible behavior to me.

   If you are looking in life - make good money, avoid diseases, avoid accidents and not have some serious downturns as you retire (retiring in August of 2008) - then you could have a better retirement than SS would provide. 

SS is an insurance for those who are not so lucky.

SS is a poorly conceived and unnecessary insurance plan for people who don't bother to save but constantly spend...not a retirement plan.

The problem now is that SS has become a necessity for many.  Why?  Poor individual financial planning.  And now you, me and everyone else (responsible and irresponsible) has to pay for their mistakes.

SS is a poorly conceived and unnecessary insurance plan for people who don't bother to save but constantly spend...not a retirement plan.

The problem now is that SS has become a necessity for many.  Why?  Poor individual financial planning.  And now you, me and everyone else (responsible and irresponsible) has to pay for their mistakes.

The party that thrives on individuals irresponsibility.



Don't save and spend too much...we got your back...

Get pregnant...PP...got your back...

Have risky sex and contract aids...we got your back...

Build your house on a cliff or below sea level...flood comes...we got your back.



How many examples of piss poor judgement is needed and when is enough...enough? The entitlement party...

Get pregnant...PP...got your back...

Have risky sex and contract aids...we got your back...

W T F are you talking about?

It's still a stupid idea.  Has anyone heard of an "emergency fund" or "rainy day fund"?  Why does the irresponsible government need to be "responsible" for citizens that don't know how to live within their means and establish their own savings?  People these days are way to "LIBERAL" with their spending and then they expect the "LIBERAL" government to "BAIL THEM OUT".  This bail stuff has got to stop.  When are people going to learn to live with the consequences that their lack of fiscal discipline creates?

Do you have any idea what SS actually pays?  You're making it out like the govt is just taking care of people, however they want, not that the govt is giving them just enough to not fall under the poverty line (and not even that much in lot's of cases). 

Oh yeah, and that's after those people PAID INTO SS for years and years.  You do realize that's what SS is, right?  Essentially, forcing people to put money into an "emergency" or "rainy day fund," and doling it back out over time...

If they able bodies that are making more on welfare and food stamps don't get a job but what do they care...they have daddy government to keep them going.  No need to be a responsible adult.

You must really enjoy being wrong.  Let's count the ways:
1) People on welfare HAVE to have jobs.  It's a requirement of the PRWOAct of 1996. If you have a problem with that, you should go tell Newt Gingrich what a dumbass he is for writing it.
2) Welfare and foodstamps aren't an incentive to not work.  They barely cover basic necessities.  Making more money, and being able to live a better life, are the incentive to get off welfare.
3) People cannot just keep getting welfare forever and ever.  There is a 5 year max on TANF assistance.  Once again, goes back to Newt's bill in 1996.  And if you don't know what TANF is, you have no business commenting on our welfare system.

Actually no I don't.  I look at SS as a huge drain on people that create their own "emergency funds" and "retirements" not because they are rich but because they know how to live within their means.  You should tell the people that are living "solely" off of SS that the plan isn't just for them.  It is now though because THEY didn't plan for retirement.  I know people well into their 40's who haven't even thought about starting a 401K and have no savings to speak of for emergencies...yet have a decent house and a bunch of really nice cars.  Sounds like irresponsible behavior to me

Do you think that SS alone will pay for those cars and houses once they retire?  Again, you must have no concept of how much SS actually pays.

SS is a poorly conceived and unnecessary insurance plan for people who don't bother to save but constantly spend...not a retirement plan.

Not everyone CAN save for retirement, because they only make enough to cover the basics.  SS forces people to put something away, and provides them something to live on in retirement.  The program has its issues, to be sure, but it's not something we should do away with.  I mean, who do you think will end up taking care of these people anyhow?  It is going to be the govt in one way or another - might as well have those people pay into the system to at least help offset, if not cover entirely, that cost.

The problem now is that SS has become a necessity for many.  Why?  Poor individual financial planning.  And now you, me and everyone else (responsible and irresponsible) has to pay for their mistakes.

Yeah, you aren't being pretentious or anything...

2) Welfare and foodstamps aren't an incentive to not work.

nathan, there is a problem here.  Medicaid.  For some of these people to work, they need an employer health plan or make enough to cover a health plan.  A single payer system would have took care of that but politicians never look at the good results of something their philosophy thinks is wrong.  Debt crisis - using a system that reins in healthcare costs and stops making healthcare costs a budget buster - no good because it is against my philosophy.

Why does the irresponsible government need to be "responsible" for citizens that don't know how to live within their means and establish their own savings?

sloner, first because the private sector could not handle it in 1933.  You ignore the reasons people fall into the safety net and just claim that they are all irresponsible.

People these days are way to "LIBERAL" with their spending

Yeah, making $40,000 with a wife and 2 kids spends money recklessly.  Do you believe that people want just SS to live on?  You should try living on a $1,000 per month.  And many seniors don't even get that because they always worked in low paying job.

This bail stuff has got to stop

Let's see people have worked all their lives and paid into an insurance plan (SS) that comes due at 65, 66, 67.  It is sort of like a term life plan.

But, sloner, thinks that, if you die or reach 65, the insurance plans should not pay???

If they able bodies that are making more on welfare and food stamps don't get a job but what do they care.

yep, every senior and poor person loves welfare.  You are really disconnected from the world.  Do you want Bush 1 to show you how the scanner at a supermarket works?

This bail stuff has got to stop

Let's see people have worked all their lives and paid into an insurance plan (SS) that comes due at 65, 66, 67.  It is sort of like a term life plan.

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

But, sloner, thinks that, if you die or reach 65, the insurance plans should not pay???

That is patently false and absurd.  I believe people who have "paid in" to this plan should absolutely get paid accordingly but I also believe that those who are still paying into it should have the option to put their money elsewhere.  Why?  Because we are adults and should be given the freedom to choose where money that is "intended for our own good" goes.  We should be able to put our money into to our own personal term life plan, 401k or whatever that our employer provides or what we can find on our own.  There are tons of ways to save and grow our investments that are much more flexible and adaptable to our personal needs than the government could ever hope to provide.

All I'm asking is that we don't get forced to put our money where we don't want it.  I think I know what is best for me more than "Uncle Sam" does thank you very much.

Your boy Obama is

Obama isn't my boy or anybody's boy

Obama isn't my boy or anybody's boy

Hes a foriegn born communists boy. 

He's a foreign born communists boy

and you are an american born dumb azz

If cutting taxes on the rich, the so-called job creators, creates jobs and we have been cutting their tax rates since Reagan, where did the jobs go? How come there aren't so many jobs that we can't come close to filling them?

Your boy Obama is

Obama isn't my boy or anybody's boy

...sorry...savior.

You think the libs are creating all these "social programs"

You know for someone who thinks he knows the "truth",  I say for the 3rd and last time, liberals are not running the country

What part of that does your pea brain fail to comprehend

How you don't see all of this I can understand because there because there once was a time when I was willfully blind and ignorant

Don't worry, you still are   In fact your level of ignorance is off the charts, and your used to be a liberal bs is hilarious

Used to be a liberal   LMAO  You dont even know what a liberal is, as evidenced by your persitant claims that libs are running the country         too stupid really, to understand that there aren't enough libs in this country or this government for libs to have the power to enact their ideas

Ok hit me up again about how Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president

You think the libs are creating all these "social programs" You know for someone who thinks he knows the "truth", I say for the 3rd and last time, liberals are not running the country What part of that does your pea brain fail to comprehend

The libs have BOTH the house (WH) and Senate...how is it the libs are not running this country, pea brain?

How you don't see all of this I can understand because there because there once was a time when I was willfully blind and ignorant

Don't worry, you still are   In fact your level of ignorance is off the charts, and your used to be a liberal bs is hilarious

You may be right...I am apparently willfully blind and ignorant enough to keep arguing with a "lib".  You can think it BS that I used to be a lib all you want...it's true.  It certainly isn't anything I'm proud of, I can assure you.  I mean...I actually voted for Kerry and Edwards...how brain washed does a person have to be to do that.  I wait...I'm asking someone who's brain washed.  Nevermind.

Used to be a liberal   LMAO  You dont even know what a liberal is, as evidenced by your persitant claims that libs are running the country        

They are...just cause "truth" means nothing to you doesn't mean I'm stupid.  You sure like to call people you don't agree with stupid a lot.  If you want to continue on that level I can oblige...stupid...see how easy that is?

too stupid really, to understand that there aren't enough libs in this country or this government for libs to have the power to enact their ideas

LOL!!!  OH how I wish that were true.  That's a laugh...name one dem in Congress or Senate who isn't a lib.  Especially the Senate and the White House.  It's disgusting really but so are you and your way of arguing by ignoring any point made that you don't agree with by simply calling said person "stupid", "clown", "moron" etc.  Yeah...I started all that and I have long since apologized but you seem to prefer to stay in that mode.  That's fine by me.  Maybe this is why nothing ever gets done in the congress.  Too many insulting condescending libs like you who are more interested in calling their fellow congressman on the right "stupid".  Great way to win people over lib.

Ok hit me up again about how Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president

OK...

Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president
Obama is the most left wing socialist radical to ever be president

You want more?  It really only needs to be said once but if I have to say that many times to get through that pea sized liberal brain of yours then I guess it will all be worth it.

The libs dont have control of the whitehouse andd senate dumbass

there are more centrist in the democratic party than liberals

You want more?

More what?  you are so ignorant and removed from reality that anybody to the right of Stalin would still be a lib to you

your insistance that Obama is a radical socialist proves how ignorant and stupid you are

Mr Truth  LMAO

The libs have BOTH the house (WH) and Senate...how is it the libs are not running this country, pea brain?

Because the House (congress) is what controls the budget process. 

LOL!!!  OH how I wish that were true.  That's a laugh...name one dem in Congress or Senate who isn't a lib. 

Retiring Senator Ben Nelson from my home state, you nimrod and he isn't the only one.  If you're suggesting that centrists (from either party) are liberals, then you should stop posting here because you have convinced me that you cannot be any older than 13 years old.    

The libs have BOTH the house (WH) and Senate...how is it the libs are not running this country, pea brain?

Because the House (congress) is what controls the budget process. 

LOL!!!  OH how I wish that were true.  That's a laugh...name one dem in Congress or Senate who isn't a lib. 

Retiring Senator Ben Nelson from my home state, you nimrod and he isn't the only one.  If you're suggesting that centrists (from either party) are liberals, then you should stop posting here because you have convinced me that you cannot be any older than 13 years old.    
_____________________________

***So let me get this straight. Its RR and GW Bush's fault for running up debt and deficits. That is the position you are all taking. Both RR and GW for most of their terms had dem controlled houses and senates. Fact.  But, you lay the complete blame on the R's...

Clinton moved to the center after the 1994 election that swept Newt's r's into power in the house and we got the contract with america...but you give him all the credit...interesting.

So, ( using your logic ) if the house controls the budget process...how don't you find blame in the dem controlled house during RR terms or for that matter GW's...not to mention the first two years of Obama's term?

You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing us conservs for...as I said...planty of blame to go around...

What are we going to do from here on out?


BTW, I asked the other day with no response...WHAT HAPPENED to all THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS? I know the answer...I would like your opinion.

toy  here's a little fact you probabaly dont know   when  rr was pres, the democratic congressess gave ronnie less money than he asked for

I'm gonna take RR at his word, that his biggest failure as president was the amount of debt he ran up

He was man enough to own up to his mistakes

But 3 decades later people like you try to put a spin on it,in attempt to blame someone else for the tripling of the debt

Is that the new motto of the gop?   we didn't do that   if it's bad we didn't do that  

attempting to conquer the rest of the world.

Where's that sweet Iraqi oil?

 

toy  here's a little fact you probabaly dont know   when  rr was pres, the democratic congressess gave ronnie less money than he asked for

I'm gonna take RR at his word, that his biggest failure as president was the amount of debt he ran up

He was man enough to own up to his mistakes

But 3 decades later people like you try to put a spin on it,in attempt to blame someone else for the tripling of the debt

Is that the new motto of the gop?   we didn't do that   if it's bad we didn't do that  


Sec...and who is to blame for 6.5 trillion added debt in the last four years?

How about the trillion plus defecits in the last four years?

Instead of continuing resolutions do you think harry could do his constitutional duty and pass a budget?

***So let me get this straight. Its RR and GW Bush's fault for running up debt and deficits. That is the position you are all taking. Both RR and GW for most of their terms had dem controlled houses and senates. Fact.  But, you lay the complete blame on the R's...

Yep...thanks for pointing that out.  Of course the libs who just love revising history will twist this into something else.  Funny how when we have an R in the WH and the D's control of house and senate that the R president is the one controlling everything but if the reverse is true that the R's are still in control.

You can't be any more delusional than this if you claimed the Erkel from Family Matters is responsible for our nation's woes more than anyone else.
  

Clinton moved to the center after the 1994 election that swept Newt's r's into power in the house and we got the contract with america...but you give him all the credit...interesting.

So, ( using your logic ) if the house controls the budget process...how don't you find blame in the dem controlled house during RR terms or for that matter GW's...not to mention the first two years of Obama's term?

You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing us conservs for...as I said...planty of blame to go around...

What are we going to do from here on out?

Well said toy.  Careful now...a lib may think you are stupid for saying such things.

BTW, I asked the other day with no response...WHAT HAPPENED to all THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS? I know the answer...I would like your opinion.

WHAT HAPPENED to all THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS?

sloner, the Blue Dog Democrats lived in swing districts, usually in Red States.  Redistricting and the public's swing in 2010 wiped them out.