115
Social Security : Swingers Discussion 95825
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsSocial Security
TOPIC: Social Security
Created by: perfectmatch The original post for this thread was deleted.
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 12   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Jack, should I be Jack-centered, rofl? We're ALL self centered, IMO. If we weren't we'd be following party lines until hell froze over. We look out for our own self interests, although I see nothing self centered in your flaming of me. Since you supposedly "backed my play" (Christ only knows what play you "think" anyone made, since you and I have never spoken), you should know me better than anyone right? lol

Cambridge VT
Username hidden
(6291 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Debjack, before you act any more like an ass, I SAID and you didn't read: "It hasn't happened often that there has been a seated Democratic president with a democratic congress, right? Since the president has to sign a law, and in this case, a change to a law, who are you going to blame? The republican congresses or the democratic presidents, or vice versa? I blame both. S

Where in God's name is there anything there blaming any one party, Jack? Where is there ANY deflection (do you really know what that word means?) I know you can't get by your radical conservatism to actually read another's point of view, but for a change, read first, flame second, ok?

Perfect, so do I. If the original intent of SS had been followed, the system would in great shape today, and every politician since SS's inception has rubbed his hands together in anticipation of using that money for the general fund. Your kids will know an entirely different system when they retire, Dan. That's what is truly sad. S

Cambridge VT
Username hidden
(6291 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Thanks for not bothering to read what I wrote, Jack. Didn't expect otherwise, have a great day. S

Cambridge VT
Username hidden
(6291 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Dan (sorry, I just read this, lol). Do something for me. When next you see your mother, ask her about the political literature she would get in the mail in the six month "ramp" before every national election starting in the 1950's. I still have some of the original letters written by political groups, and politicians, all Republican. At every election, the old saw of "the Democrats will take away your Social Security" came out. My parents and grandparents saved some of them, and they're a hoot.

It hasn't happened often that there has been a seated Democratic president with a democratic congress, right? Since the president has to sign a law, and in this case, a change to a law, who are you going to blame? The republican congresses or the democratic presidents, or vice versa? I blame both. S

Cambridge VT
Username hidden
(6291 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I gave you the website for the social security administration that addressed the email you received.

You keep telling everyone how smart you are, so I expected that you could read and analyze for yourself. Certainly my analytical skills would be no match for yours. I just analyze stuff like this for a living.

If you want to believe an anonymous email over the actual written law and the actual agency that administers that law, more power to you.

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17347 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And when it is refuted by the very agency and the very law the email purports to know so well, you still don't believe it.

So really, what is the point?

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17347 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I just opened this email and I have no idea if it's all true. I figure if it isn't some of the libtards here will point it out.

proving a negative to be untrue is sometimes difficult. that's why many of the negative spin doctors on both sides say outrageous things and then utter, u prove it's not true. it used to be to take a position, to make an argument you had to have a foundation. no more. it is now just on conclusory statement after the other, facts be damned.

Philadelphia PA
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I am saying I would believe the Social Security website and the actual text of the law before I would believe an anonymous email.

Your standards of evidence seem to be somewhat lower...

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17347 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Anonymous emails always have more credibility than actual law...

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17347 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And the links only refer to the actual text of the actual law as it was actually passed.

Not anonymous emails or out of context quotes of presidents...

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17347 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 12   End
TOPIC: Social Security