Supreme Court Enters Final Stretch with Key Decisions in Limbo

By | May 13, 2016

  • May 13, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 19

    “There’s this extraordinary inaction by the Senate.”

    It’s called obstructionism and the vehicle is Republicant’s. Chuck Grassley wanted to put a rain forest in Iowa but refuses to do his job to help solve real issues. Be interesting to see what Baby Hands does if he wins. Thank GOD it won’t be Ted Cruz. That guy would have been a flipping disaster! Of all the R candidates, Drumpf is actually the second best to Kasich. At least he leans progressively on many social issues, for the most part. Though, he does have a tendency to change his tune to provoke an audience. And, “the poorly educated” are certainly dancing to that music.

    • May 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm
      integrity matters says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 9

      Planet…You can call it obstructionism if you want, I’ll call it fiscal responsibility to reign in the runaway entitlements of the progressive democrats.

      Is your memory that short that the democrats had all three branches of the govt and failed to produce ONE reasonable budget. The only thing Dirty Harry Reid and clueless Nancy Pelosi could do was bribe the DEMOCRATS to pass Obamacare.

      If Cruz would have been a disaster (with his promise to save the Constitution and return to fiscal responsibility), what label can we put on the past 8 years of Obama? I’ll call it a combined catastrophe of a 9.0 earthquake plus a category 5 hurricane followed by an EF 5 tornado. Now that is a disaster.

      Worse yet, we will turn into a third world country if Hilliary or Bernie gets elected. We KNOW the problems they will bring this country, both fiscally and morally.

      Trump, on his worst day, will not even come close to the mess those two will bring to this country.

      You say ” the poorly educated” are certainly dancing to that music”. I say, if Hilliary or Bernie are elected, ” the educated will become poor paying for the dance music of the entitled.”

      • May 13, 2016 at 5:20 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 3

        I totally agree about the runaway corporate entitlements.

        • May 16, 2016 at 9:20 am
          integrity matters says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 4

          Once again, your head is in the sand. For the first time in history, more than 50% of the public population (not corporate) is receiving some sort of public assistance.

          Its funny how you don’t comment on the corruption of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Probably because you know its true and don’t care.

      • May 15, 2016 at 5:23 pm
        Bill says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 7

        Cruz promised to “save the Constitution?” I must have missed that little detail. Reinterpreting is NOT the same thing as saving it!
        As for Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell, it is disgusting to see them making up their own interpretation of how they are supposed to be doing their jobs. Last time I checked there is not a guarantee that we absolutely must have a conservative Supreme Court. Moderate justices would be nice for a change.

        • May 16, 2016 at 9:33 am
          integrity matters says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 4

          Bill, you probably missed it because you only pay attention to the State run media.

          Cruz is not liked by his own party BECAUSE he is trying to save the constitution. The RINO party of McConnell and Boehner are more like the democrats of the late 60s and early 70s.

          The reinterpreting of the Constitution is Obama’s mantra, not Cruz.

          I am not saying we have to have a conservative Supreme Court. I do believe we need a Supreme Court (actually, all levels of court) that does not legislate from the bench. The problem with todays court is they are ruling based on their ideology and not based on the rule of law. All judges and justices are supposed to interpret the law without personal bias.

          • May 16, 2016 at 10:29 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 4

            integrity matters,

            Then you support President Obama’s nominee receiving a fair hearing and an up or down vote? Or are you one of the people that thinks the voters of the next election should decide, indicating that the voices of those who voted in the last Presidential Election are not as valid?

            You said, “I am not saying we have to have a conservative Supreme Court. I do believe we need a Supreme Court (actually, all levels of court) that does not legislate from the bench.” While I agree with you, legislating from the bench only seems to occur when the court interprets a law differently than someone thinks it should have been interpreted. The idea of judges/justices removing their own personal biases sounds like fantasy land. They are all human beings, not machines.

          • May 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 5

            I see you’re presumptive labeling Integrity on this one.

            How cute. He wasn’t discussing the random aspect you threw in to try and derail his conversation and give some blame to republicans.

            Funny. You said it’s republicans who seem to just want to focus on random things to blame the democrats regarding.

            But…You just did what exactly?

          • May 16, 2016 at 4:39 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            Hey Bob, provide some pointless links about how the Republicans aren’t obstructionist because they passed Obamacare repeal bills and named parks. Pure genius, but of course by your standards if they don’t call it obstruction, neither will you.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/payback-gop-blocks-obama-judge-picks-judiciary-119743
            http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/11/pfaw-memo-gop-exceeds-expectations-executive-branch-obstruction

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            I gave 511 examples moron.

            Not all of them were repeals of the ACA. Regardless of such, repealing the ACA to replace it is not obstructionism. It is attempting to pass another plan. The republicans had many that the CBO said would lower the cost of insurance. The democrat plans were said to increase it by 9%, the republican ones were said to decrease it, by 9%, by comparison to without on both ends. I have given you these links, moron. I’m not doing it for the 50th time.

            Allowing the ACA as the only option is obstructionism. Republicans had options. The public didn’t want the ACA. Why did we pass it?

            I might add: When the founding fathers were fresh, judicial appointments took a long time. Rushing an appointment to get one in before you leave office, and then every day since the republicans said they don’t want your election saying we need to do it NOW is also bad. Obama is using the fact that the republicans don’t want his nominee, to get in any nominee he wants.

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:43 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 5

            And I really have to emphasize this:

            They aren’t obstructionists because they constantly try to pass bills.

            At some point or another you have to realize when they can’t pass any bills, they are going to fight back in some regard against what they see as corruption.

            Obama started this war with them, and they are trying to pass anything while Obama mocks them in public, goes back on his debt deal for sequester every single year, asks for new taxes each year to allow the cuts, and refuses to honor his original agreement.

            By the way, I noticed you didn’t reply to my last comments from the other article.

            Did you run away because you couldn’t refute my facts?

            As you keep saying I am doing with you?

            You hypocrite partisan moron. You’re not debating with a partisan hack, this is why my posts do NOT sound like Agent’s, and always have links.

            This is why the last site, you had what, 2?

            You’ve got the intelligence of a child and the intuitive capability of a mongoose. You’re not as think as you smart you are.

            I was raised in a democrat state. Not Texas, not Montana, and I have shown you bills of corruption.

            You have not shown me and broken down a SINGLE bill.

            I have proven that republicans in my state would have voted for the gay rights bill, and even gay marriage. They passed it with fair amendments.

            I have proven that democrats wanted to allow criminal liability, law suits, Sanders is doing the same.

            We do NOT want the government to have the ability to impose criminal liability for vague contradictions of their established ok parameters.

            Otherwise we have no defense in court. They can just come after us. Stop falling into the typical partisan divide, and wake up.

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:49 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Bob,

            Those 511 bills were pre-2014. How about since Republicans took over in 2015? That is what I asked for.

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:30 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            What??? When will you assign blame to democrats?

            Republicans held a majority in the house in 2014. They didn’t lose it in 2012. They expanded it slightly in 2014.

            2015 would have been the year that they first passed bills, correct, but we are still operating in 2014 with the 2012 congress! Which means the 2012 house majority of republicans definitely are doing their jobs, and now you’re going to tell me 2014 aren’t until I give you what, another 511 bills?

            I might add in 2014 the democrats had the senate. So are you actually asking for senate blocked bills in 2015 by republicans after they took the senate?

            Is this your question? By more clear!

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:31 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            And if that is your question, if I show how many bills Obama has blocked, will you straight away go to Bush W and veto comparisons?

            Why should I even debate you when you are so predictable?

            You set up equations that you think are clever, and ask loaded questions. I watch you do it all the time.

            This is old Ron, I’m sick of it.

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:37 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            For you UW:

            http://www.speaker.gov/general/top-10-bipartisan-jobs-bills-blocked-senate-democrats

            You might not agree with these bills, but here are some that republicans received support from democrats regarding that the senate blocked.

          • May 17, 2016 at 6:05 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 4

            Bob, 511 is the fewest in 20 years. What happened around then? Oh yeah, garbage, hypocritical Republicans did everything possible to block another Democratic president. Also, moron, you don’t seem to understand what obstruction means. Passing anything doesn’t mean you aren’t obstructionist, but destroying all records for filibusters, refusing to bring judges up for votes, blocking and delaying all federal appointments, etc is obstruction. But you don’t care, and will explain it away, because you agree with it, but want to be seem as a Very Serious Person, when in reality you are no different than the drooling white supremacist Agents cheering on a fascist like Trump, and wildly supporting taking away the rights of anyody who isn’t an old, rich white male.

            BTW, in your moronic article you posted, but didn’t look into, as always, the first article tries to reduce the number of employees counted for Obamacare, despite your claims to the contrary. I will actually give you the benefit of the doubt here as clueless instead of dishonest. Everything they pass is garbage, and you are a clueless fraud.

          • May 17, 2016 at 6:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            Do you know what the benefit of the doubt means, boy?

            You don’t give me the benefit of the doubt, don’t talk down to me while trying to say you’re being open minded to my info, or I’ll call you a boy.

            Moving on:

            “As always”. Nothing works in absolutes. To say I “always” don’t check my links is not correct. It shows your partisan behavior. In fact, most studies on this matter show that people who speak on “always” on matters tend to be bad with relationship skills. Do you say that to your wife when she has a problem? Even if I had a problem in this area, your saying always will make me easily able to say you’re wrong. It harms relationships, it also harms debates.

            Moving forward again:

            What are you talking about regarding Obamacare? You are absurdly off topic.

            Moving off of that:

            “white supremacist” You cannot make these comments without definitive proof. Republicans are not white supremacist, or they wouldn’t have started the 1957 civil rights bill, and they wouldn’t have voted as a larger percentage for the 1964 bill, no change has occurred. Republicans are not racist. Get over it, stop that typical partisan hack behavior.

            Moving on yet again:

            “Bob, 511 is the fewest in 20 years. What happened around then? ”

            Citation needed, and facts detailing this. Not all 500 bills are created equal. 511 is the last amount blocked? Because 511 is the total of passed bills, and actually, when you break down the numbers it proves the republicans in current day are passing more than democrats. You can’t say it’s the least ever, without insulting the one of the two passing less laws in present day.

            Moving forward yet again:

            Democrats have obstructed bills, appointments, etc that they don’t like. Judge appointments are to be taken seriously. Literally within a week of the judge dying, Obama had decided he would preemptively say that the republicans would allow no vote. That started a war. Just like how he said you sit in the back, in the beginning of his presidency, and he was obviously referring to a certain famous racism story with that comment.

            Each issue you just said is pure bullshit, or the democrats are doing more of it, or have done more of it.

            Let’s stop derailing and look at the damn bills in the now and who the blocked what.

            I do have to point something out:

            Fighting corrupt appointments is not obstructionism.

            Many people tried and failed to stop Hitler, and he tried to trigger people just like you into blind allegiance. Republicans don’t blindly follow. We DO insult our own appointments, don’t you see even agent calling them “Rhinos?”. Have you insulted even ONE democrat action? One person?

            You partisan piece of shit?

          • May 17, 2016 at 6:45 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            I literally cannot find what you’re talking about with regards to Obamacare UW.

            It appears you searched back and tried to find something I was wrong on in the past in order to discredit me today. Am I correct?

            If so, stay on topic.

            If I did misread something in the past, it does not mean I always do, and you yourself have made considerable errors in how to weigh demographics.

            I tend to source quote many areas and go over them quite a bit.

            I will say agent does not, but again, I am not agent.

            In group out group is the source of racism. Have you looked into that? It’s called own group preference.

            When you declare me the out group, or in other words I am not your own group preference, you are acting off of own group preference, which is the source of racism.

            There is a reason why I have constantly called people here like you bigoted.

            You’re free to disagree. You’re even free to think I’m an idiot, on occasional issues, (not all). You’re not free to apply a label to a group of out group people, you’re not free to apply hip names to out groups of people, or declare anyone outside of your own group are white supremacists.

            I might add, I’m Hispanic, and I’ve said it before you dumb fuck.

          • May 17, 2016 at 9:57 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            But Bob, I was right to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were ignorant, and just copying and pasting a link without looking into it, instead of lying. You confirmed my belief by not being able to find the Obamacare provision in the bill, which is the main reason it did not pass. They wanted to create a program where among other things companies received benefits for hiring military members, but did not want these members to count towards the minimum required under Obamacare to offer coverage to employees. An undoing of Obamacare, like I said.

            I am not talking down to you, I am talking on your level, which you confirmed by once again not knowing even the basics about the talking points and links you copied and pasted without looking into. Again, you also did not know the historical context of the legendary 511 bills, and how that was the least in 20 years. As always, clueless, dishonest, or both.

            Yes, maybe when the Founding Fathers were “fresh” it took a long time to confirm judges, but it isn’t pre-1800 anymore, idiot, and just because as always you have to go back over 200 years to justify your idiotic belief doesn’t mean it is legitimate. You are an outright, idiotic clown, grasping at the weakest arguments to justify your beliefs, so you can seem like an intellectual serious person. You and I know you are a moron. Half Of All Filibusters Of Executive-Branch Nominees Have Occurred Under President Obama.That is obstruction, and it isn’t because it takes a long time to ride your freaking horse-drawn cart from Alabama to Washington DC, and can only do it in the warm months, dolt.

            In recent history, since 1975, the avg time from nomination to confirmation has been 67 days. Since 1875 every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past 30 years was less than 100 days. They are going to wait over 300. They are obstructionists, and you are clueless. From committee approval, to a vote on the floor Republicans have delayed Obama’s circuit court selections by making them wait 4x longer than under Bush, and in district court selections it has been 3x longer. Obstruction, obviously.

            But, you say they are corrupt, even though when they go to the floor, they generally receive almost unanimous votes, the same goes for his political appointees. Disagreeing with you is not corruption, you ignorant POS. Refusing to meet with somebody means by definition they cannot know if they are corrupt.

            Everything you say is trash. You are pure trash. Just lie after lie, and a complete willingness to stretch the bounds of reason as far as possible for right-wingers like Trump, and then anybody who isn’t an outright fascist you read into things that aren’t there. Trump says he will kill families, but he didn’t propose a bill, so he won’t really do it; Sanders talks about a specific case where a company knowingly, and admittedly lied and funded lies for decades, harming people, and that means he is going to prosecute any of the idiots buying into conspiracy theories and ignoring decades of data–like you. You claim you haven’t misrepresented anything, but I already provided a bunch of examples where you did, so again, you lie or you are insane.

            Total, 100% pseudo-intellectual clown, dishonest to the core. Copy and paste more links without reading them, loser.

          • May 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Bob,

            I asked one simple question and, instead of answering the question, you go off on some irrelevant tangent and insult me. To quote you, “You are absurdly off topic.”

            This is not about the Democrats because they no longer control neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives. I am focusing on 2015 only because my point is that the Republicans were given control of Congress over a year ago to prove that they can govern. They have failed. Unless you can prove otherwise.

            If they have not passed ant meaningful legislation, outside of repealing the PPACA, then just say so. Until you are willing to hold your party accountable, stop asking me to blame the democrats for their failings.

            If you are not smart enough to debate me, then stop trying. You are just making yourself look like an uneducated fool.

          • May 18, 2016 at 1:04 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Bob, you have brought up your new pet link about 511 bills a half dozen times, and another link as what passes as proof to you, and probably a lot of illiterate idiots. I said it’s bs and you hadn’t even looked into them, because as a fraud, that’s what you do. You claimed these were significant and didn’t address Obamacare, and the first one you link to includes an attempt to weaken Obamacare. Being uninformed and illiterate doesn’t change this.

            You other link to an even bigger fraud, Ryan, isn’t about job bills, as it claims. Notably one is about cyber security, and making private companies share private data with the government. Not jobs, and companies protested it widely. I looked through a few I wasn’t fully informed on at random, and not 1 was a jobs bill. Again, as usual, you don’t even know what is in the links you use, hence the commentary on your intellectual and honesty. As for a citcitation on it being the fewest passed I will provide a link when I have time, but your inability to confirm even the most simple figures that are not written about daily in right-wing media is telling.

            As always, you are dishonest, or incompetent, but possibly swaying towards Agent-illiteracy. Research your sources before posting them please.

      • May 18, 2016 at 1:46 pm
        Celtica says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 3

        Dear Integrity: Where was that fiscal responsibility during Bush II’s reign when he took a budget surplus from Clinton and FUBAR’d it with tax cuts while financing a war, and applied finishing touches to a complete economic collapse?

        Eh?

    • May 16, 2016 at 3:31 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Barack-Obama-Congress/2014/08/07/id/587482/

      Bull.

      Also, stop using labels and names for republican candidates.

      Drumpf is extremely racist when it comes to World War II issues, Germany, etc.

      The paths to retirement that have been suggested many years would be excellent, and Bush W is the one who passed the tax credits which give can give you $1,200 back in refunds for $1,200 of investments in the lower class. Anyone making even $35,000 can get that. That will provide a hell of a lot more than social security to most families.

      Republicans have real ideas, ones that involve common sense.

      Democrats just constantly bicker about what new spending to do and what new taxes to do.

      • May 16, 2016 at 4:01 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 4

        I really should be clear on what I mean, I generally assume I’m talking to people who know what I know, a mistake when I make comments like the above.

        When say $1,200 invested each year will give that lower class citizen more than social security, I mean more than what they paid in, a better deal, than social security.

        That $1,200 tax credit over their entire working career (at minimum 55 years since these are people who probably aren’t going to college and would certainly have to work in their early 20’s, and that is assuming they live to 75 on average)

        Gives them $488,000 for putting in $66,000. If they actually do it.

        By comparison if they worked their whole life and intended to rely on social security as the primary means of retirement, as of 2012 they would receive about a 33% bump if social security remains somewhat similar to what it is now (it won’t, retirement age and population distribution numbers won’t allow this)

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

        So they would at equal returns get about $85,000 from the government. This is assuming a very low 7% annualized return as an average.

        If you ask me, they should just make a $100 contribution mandatory per month, have the government give a $100 tax credit for each $100 someone gives, and move on.

        That’s only one thing though, not the only thing they should do.

        • May 16, 2016 at 5:57 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 3

          Social Security isn’t an investment, it’s insurance, and it costs I’m sure you counsel your customers to forego insurance and invest, right? Because we all know nobody needs this earlier that after an entire career working. Nobody dies and has a family who would have had 5 years, 10 years, etc of savings live off social security.

          This program wasn’t a program liberals invented because they wanted to spend. It’s a program liberals invented because elderly people, who had the option to invest without social security, were living in abject poverty after they retired. It has been a hugely successful program, despite constant efforts to end the program, and to harm it.

          Everything you say is a lie, or based on at best a superficial understanding of the issues. Your “plan” is absolutely retarded. You are absolutely idiotic. You pretend to be serious by offering a plan which is essentially doing away with it, and going back to elderly people eating cat food until they effectually die of pneumonia.

          • May 16, 2016 at 5:58 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            I submitted while typing, first line is :

            Social Security isn’t an investment, it’s insurance, and it covers more than retirement…

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:31 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 4

            A: Nothing I put above is a lie. Stop putting character attacks and being a partisan hack.

            B: You are free to disagree. You talk about social security is “insurance”. I talk about the means to retire. If you take 12.2% of someone’s income to retire (don’t kid yourself, they lose the other end of the 6.2% in income that gets charged to the employer) that insurance better yield results that are crucial to your ability to live. Considering with many people this is the ONLY money they have left, it makes sense to rely on it for INSURANCE if you state that, not the primary means to retire:

            Which brings me to C:

            As it stands now, we have little incentive to invest. I mentioned investing ONE HUNDRED PER MONTH. That also is not a primary means to retire. Do you think that ONE HUNDRED PER MONTH is an irrational investment amount, and it should instead be put into social security?

            This brings me to D: Did I mention doing away with social security?

            Democrats are not creating new paths to retire, that’s what I said. They are relying SOLELY on social security, whereas Bush W tried to create even more paths to retirement. I have mentioned these plans before, look them up.

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            “You pretend to be serious by offering a plan which is essentially doing away with it, and going back to elderly people eating cat food until they effectually die of pneumonia.”

            Go to hell and eat shit. You don’t get to talk to me like that. I have not proposed this, nor have other republicans. We talk about what is best, INCLUSIVE of for the middle class.

            When you set up a system that does not reward work, the lower class will bankrupt and cause what you just mentioned to happen to the middle class.

            None of us here are advocating for starving the elderly.

            I am also not lying. Stay the fuck on topic, you partisan hack.

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:52 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            So math:

            12.2% of your income even if the family total makes $45,000 (ludicrously low) = $5,490 per year. This is expensive insurance.

            If they had that much to invest it would yield a return of 3.1 million dollars.

            There comes a point when you are taking enough of someone’s income that they have no means to retire, and that insurance becomes the sole path, that you have to consider making more options to help someone have money to retire.

            Plus, having the money in the stocks makes low interest rates without having to spend money on it, which Obama spent trillions on QE. This will actually also trigger deflation. The cost of things will go down, the inflated cost of living made by the government, thus creating the need for help, would be removed.

            With more people investing in the stock market not only would interest by low, capital would grow at faster rates. You could see larger GDP growth, making for more revenues, you could see more returns on the investments for people investing.

            What should be done is a combo. The government has an amount they will give you if your retirement funds drop below a certain point. Everyone else invests let’s say half of their social security into a fund that is grown over time. The other half goes to paying for people who their funds didn’t grow much over time. On an average, that won’t happen. It will only be on the abstract. This means that doing this will ensure the solvency of the program, while ensuring a cut in government spending, while also insuring, through proper insurance, that you have X retirement funds.

            THAT is balancing a plan to retire. Not focusing on the social security benefits and tax rates. That is all democrats do. Bush W tried to get this in place, and so did many other republicans.

            You explain to me why it shouldn’t be done?

          • May 17, 2016 at 2:55 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            I mean really, pay attention to what I just said.

            I just said essentially that we could provide for those who NEED it. The social security net would be for insurance with what I put below.

            I would create the ability for people to grow more funds, and I would provide for the ones who NEED it. The poor. The plan below is FOR the middle class and poor.

            It is less restrictive than the democrat plans.

            Please point out to me the democrat plans for the middle class when it comes to retirement.

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:08 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Bob,

            The fact that you called $45,000 per year ludicrously low shows how uneducated you are. ~44% of families make less than that. And those are the ones who rely on Social Security the most at retirement.

            http://www.frugalfringe.com/numbers-crunching/how-to-compare-your-income-to-others-without-being-rude/

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 5

            Call me uneducated again, and I’m going to go off on you.

            Not everyone is an expert on all things. I am not uneducated as a whole. You are free to call me wrong, you are not free to then say because I’m wrong I’m uneducated.

            Moving on: I mentioned households. As in a family. The average family at $40,000 is ludicrously low. That is $10 an hour for two earners. This is also $12,000 below the median. I did this number, on purpose Ron. I was selective of going below the Median

            http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-in-2015-household-income-wages-real-income-gdp/

            $40,000 is a ludicrously low number. In the states where it is under $40,000, the cost of living is low enough that those people despite having lower incomes are better off than $40,000. So if you want a little true education, we can go over those numbers, Mr. cliche one liner bull man.

            The amount of families working full time is the norm. Most families earning less than what I put have disabilities or other factors limiting work. These people already receive assistance, and should not be counted into your average worker’s income.

            Moving on: I notice you didn’t debate my other numbers there regarding returns on the money they are losing.

            They would be better off with the split system I mentioned. It is not an opinion.

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:26 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            Also I have to add:

            I used families for another reason:

            The typical person making say under $20,000 per year works part time and is going to school, or is in a starting field position.

            If you’re going to tell me the average American in a full time job, who has been working for a good portion of their life makes less than $20,000 a year, and I’m an idiot for calling that ludicrously low, then you just don’t know demographics, at all.

            It’s literally insane to call my number high. Literally, insane. Are you going to try to do so?

          • May 17, 2016 at 3:38 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            More importantly:

            All my numbers cannot be done away with by simply calling me uneducated and taking one section of it that you think is wrong.

            AHA moments don’t ruin concepts. You have to disprove the whole thing.

            You’re used to the AHA, likely due to your child like mentalities.

          • May 17, 2016 at 4:37 pm
            Two Cents says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 0

            While I enjoy reading the back and forth of these comments, could you please stop swearing so much bob? I get it – someone insults you and you defend yourself in frustration. That’s fine. But your potty mouth is unbecoming of a professional. Post that nonsense on youtube comments – let’s try to keep this site clean of profanity, okay?

          • May 18, 2016 at 8:28 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Bob,

            If you are free to label me however you wish, so can I. You are either uneducated or ignorant. I let you decide which.

            You said, “It’s literally insane to call my number high. Literally, insane. Are you going to try to do so?” When did I say your number was high? An ignorant person may have tried to imply that from what I said, but an educated person would have perused my post and surmised that I was simply proving that the number is not ludicrously low.

            I see you now went from $45k to $40k. Can you stay consistent with anything?

            I also used families in my retort to be consistent with your post. If you were educated, you would have noticed.

            $45k per year would be ludicrously low if the corporations would let the trillions of dollars in profits they are sitting on trickle down in the form of more jobs and higher wages.

            In addition, not all families are in the position to have both parents working, assuming the parents are still residing in the same household. many have young children or special needs children that cost more for care than they would make at a job.

            You try to make things so simple and black-and-white,. The world, outside of your little slice of Heaven, does not work that way. You really need to expand your view and become more educated.

          • May 18, 2016 at 1:45 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Bob.

            “You talk about social security is “insurance”. I talk about the means to retire.”

            Okay, but that ignores much of what it is. I can call it a plan for getting to the moon, but that doesn’t make it right, it would just make me clueless.

            About 30% have no retirement savings, and allowing them to invest $100/month won’t help them, because they don’t make enough to voluntarily save that much. But we don’t need your fraudulent math, because we have experience and data for both this country and other countries without this program, and it is much worse without it, and it’s not debatable.

            Also, your “very low” returns are higher than what most consider average, your life expectancy is already about 4 years less then the current one, which is increasing, and the length of time you use takes anybody who goes to school beyond high school as working until the age at which you say they die, and increases the average retirement age by 15 years. Fraud.

            You are an absolute BS artist posing as an intellectual, serious person. Just a total clown. Nothing you say approaches reality. Start from the problem and then find a solution, not from your preferred policy, and then working backwards trying to make your numbers fit. There is no reason to consider you anything more than a total dolt, add I and others have proven over and over, now post a long rant without any reality, context, or actual analysis and get some cheese for your whine while you post links you haven’t read or don’t understand.

          • May 19, 2016 at 4:38 am
            actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            Hey Bob, calm down you nut. This is what I was hoping for from Ron & uw. Bob has been exposed as a total liar and completely clueless on economics and history. Ignore what Ron says about 45% making a particular income and unilaterally declare it as ridiculously low, and as uw proved, base your plan on completely false figures for income, life expectancy, and retirement age. No wonder ppl like you support ppl like Paul Ryan, Bush & Drumpf but hate actual economists and things like predictive analytics.

            You could not pass a freshman history or economics course, so people calling you uneducated is completely fine. You still cling to the whole Republicans were the party of Lincoln and supported the Civil Rights bill tropes, even though Lincoln obviously would not be one now. You ignore the fact that Southern Democrats left the party to become Republicans because the Democrats were no longer supporting enough racism and the Republican southern strategy.

            You don’t seem to support a ban on cursing anymore, so I guess that is a flip flop?

          • May 19, 2016 at 12:38 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            No. I swear for affect and I swear to be free to swear at someone who makes a ludicrous comment.

            It is better to be unrestrained and to show people not to be full of shit, then it is to be “professional” and teach people that what matters is how you look when you talk, not what you say.

            I didn’t use to swear until it became apparent from someone in my life that speech was far too restricted.

            I love my freedom to say damn swear words. And I’ll exercise it when the time calls for it.

          • May 19, 2016 at 12:40 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Typical bully response.

          • May 19, 2016 at 6:17 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            So again for Bob the numbers are irrelevant, because they don’t match the outcome he is working backwards from and has decided they don’t count. 40% of people making minimum wage or below are over 25 years old, at a minimum 7 years after investing at $50k in your fantasy world had started. You are clueless, and yes, when literally everything you state is an outright fantasy, or based on made up, incorrect numbers, there is ample reason to call you uninformed, when it’s a pattern there is reason to call you uneducated.

            Your explanation for your cursing is comical based on your previous statements and faux-outrage over it. I personally have no problem with it, but also never freaked out about it. I will pat myself on the back for immediately recognizing you were only interested in false civility when it applied to you. Like everything else I’ve seen about you, fraudulent and dishonest to the core, abs a total pseudo-intellectual, boy.

        • May 19, 2016 at 8:59 pm
          Godot says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Oh, good. Bob’s back.

          • May 20, 2016 at 1:33 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Bob, when you swear all the time, it takes the attention away from your point and draws it to your cussing. I would pay more attention to your posts if not for the constant cussing. You do make good points, but they get diminished.

  • May 13, 2016 at 2:26 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 9

    Kasich blew it because he kept saying the same thing at all the debates “I created jobs in Ohio and I balanced the budget in Ohio and I was part of the team that last passed a balanced budget in DC.” Mr. Trump shot him down when he quickly explained the only reason jobs were created in Ohio was due to fracking.
    Mr. Trump will surround himself with successful people and lead the USA back to greatness. Lying Clinton only promises more of the same of the last 8 years. Sanders is giving away everything and will only throw the USA more into debt. Go Trump!!!

  • May 17, 2016 at 3:55 pm
    Yogi Polar Berra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    Not sure why all the blabber is needed. Here’s a summary of why Trump and Clinton are the presumptive nominees…

    Clinton’s super delegate tally is a direct result of stepping aside in 2008, and lying to cover up the ineptness of the Obama regime.

    Cruz tried to preserve the US Constitution …which is what Obama promised to ‘fundamentally change’. The Republican Establishment didn’t like that, because it would mean they would lose their job security. So they didn’t support him or many Americans who wanted Cruz to do what he said he would do.

    Trump arose due to Republicans NOT COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING Obama’s destructive agenda and apology tour of the World, and not fix divots on dozens of golf courses, and incur hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars on Hawaiian/ other World vacation resorts.

    Boehner was essentially ‘Cantored’ out of his House seat due to his ineptness in NOT COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING Obama’s destructive agenda.

    Ryan may also be on his way out after he is ‘Cantored’ in a primary in WI while, simultaneously, McCain is ‘Cantored’ in Arizona in a primary.

    I doubt Mitch McConnell will try to be re-elected. He bowed down once too often to Obama’s whim while Americans suffered and sacrificed significantly under them in this Millenium, and elected those Republicans to DO SOMETHING. The only thing they did was acquiesce to Obama’s whims.

    Social security is a PAYGO Ponzi Scheme that is destined to fail due to demographic shifts and changes, and political cycles that were never anticipated by the architects.

    Ditto the same comments for Medicare and Medicaid. Johnson broke into the Soc Sec lockbox in 1965 to pay for his PAYGO social engineering programs that are about to Crash & Bern.

    Obamacare / ACA is the result of a Jarret’s and Gruber’s scheme to defraud voters, rob future generations of Americans who will have to pay to clean up their mess, and leave the scene of the crime before the voters ‘statute of limitation’ expires.

    We don’t need ANY MORE of the rambling, nonsensical comments by liberals who don’t have any justification to criticize Republicans for defending America against irresponsible behavior by Democrats in office. We DO need more criticism of the RINOs who are still in office and still submitting to bribery or blackmail to allow Obama’s regime to continue its agenda.

    In 8 months and a few days, Our Long National Nightmare will be over.

    • May 17, 2016 at 3:58 pm
      Yogi Polar Berra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      PS Here come the liberals BOTS!

      • May 18, 2016 at 8:31 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 5

        Yogi Polar Berra,

        I think you forgot your tin-foil hat. Maybe if you would stop posting BS, you would not receive so many Dislikes. Just a thought.

      • May 18, 2016 at 9:12 am
        Yogi Polar Berra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 3

        @Ron; please point to specifics in my post that are BS. OK? Thanks!

        Obama’s Destructive Agenda summarized succinctly: First POTUS with NO year with at least 3% GDP growth… for the FIRST TIME EVER! Please explain why those stats are BS. Please explain why POTUS O has a ‘pen and phone’ to effect Changey-Hopey, yet the US economy never ‘Changeyed’ for the better.

        • May 18, 2016 at 12:06 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          Yogi Polar Berra,

          First, I do not dislike any posts. I find that behavior to be childish and counter-productive.

          Second, I made that point to clarify that there are no BOTS disliking posts.

          Third, I am not going back to all of your previous posts, but there are some themes such as, holding President Obama to a higher standard than previous presidents, stating that the economy has not improved since his first year in office, defending Republicans blindly when they refuse to govern, and thinking the president is a dictator and controls everything.

        • May 19, 2016 at 9:06 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Hey Yogi (and Agent), you have taken up Agent’s idiotic talking point about less than 3% GDP growth, at least you seem to know what it is, unlike Agent. I have a comment and a question for you. I agree, it is not good. But, as you and Agent clearly do not understand, the US operates and is largely interdependent with other nations and their economies. You see the economies of nations are largely influenced by global conditions now. The US has, when measured by GDP growth, fared well compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

          https://europeansnapshot.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/real-082014-10-26.png

          Now (since I am sure you will ignore that, and focus on the isolated nominal number of 3%) since 3% is higher than the average growth under Republicans, do you use the same logic and agree that not only must we vote for Clinton, but we must never vote for another Republican again?

          http://presidentialdata.org/gdp_growth-s.jpg

          (data from the BLS, economic reports of the president, and Congressional Budget office.

          Thanks, I await your well-reasoned, thought out answer.

          • May 30, 2016 at 9:26 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            That’s what I thought.

      • May 18, 2016 at 9:16 am
        Yogi Polar Berra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 3

        Dislikes are a direct result of liberals’ denial of economic truths they caused; e.g. Socialist Ponzi Schemes, The Dodd-Frank malfeasance.

  • May 18, 2016 at 3:30 pm
    Celtica says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    It appears Trump released a list of prospective Supreme Court nominees this week. Wonder who will be on the list next, being the flip flopper that he is.

    • May 18, 2016 at 6:09 pm
      Yogi Polar Berra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I suspect that Judge Judy and Judge Reinhold are on his list.

      Further, none of the judges who sat on cases he initiated or defended will make the list, so it must be a short list. ;)

  • May 19, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Most of this chatter has nothing to do with the article…

    • May 19, 2016 at 9:00 pm
      Godot says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Sadly, so little of the chatter ever does, FFA!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*