The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it


Nobody would touch it...unless the whole legislative branch had term limits..or
something like that.



John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it


Nobody would touch it...unless the whole legislative branch had term limits..or
something like that.



John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi
scheme?


GeoSynch


Cross posts removed
until you can limit your response to just one group
you do not deserve any further attention
G

Aw..c'mon George..answer the question..it's a good one. You are gonna not
respond because of someone's posting habits?




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi
scheme?


GeoSynch


Cross posts removed
until you can limit your response to just one group
you do not deserve any further attention
G

Aw..c'mon George..answer the question..it's a good one. You are gonna not
respond because of someone's posting habits?




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:
The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it



Nobody would touch it...unless the whole legislative branch had term limits..or
something like that.



that is my pointmore than enough blame to go around on this one
as far as I can remember I have not voted for any new deal democrats
G

Blind Joni wrote:
The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it



Nobody would touch it...unless the whole legislative branch had term limits..or
something like that.



that is my pointmore than enough blame to go around on this one
as far as I can remember I have not voted for any new deal democrats
G

"GeoSynch" wrote in message

George Gleason wrote:

We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._on_go_co/dela
y

"GeoSynch" wrote in message

George Gleason wrote:

We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._on_go_co/dela
y

"GeoSynch" wrote in message link.net...
George Gleason feigns disingenuousness:

We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50 years why has nothing been
done even Reagan didn't touch it

And whenever election time rolls around, which party invariably attempts to scare
senior citizens with the old canard 'they're going to take your Social Security
benefits away'?

Reality-check time, George: is Social Security a massive, forced wealth-redistribution
from current and future contributors to retirees with little to no fiduciary guarantee
that said contributors will receive the principal back let alone normal interest on that
investment?

Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi scheme?


GeoSynch


As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.

"GeoSynch" wrote in message link.net...
George Gleason feigns disingenuousness:

We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50 years why has nothing been
done even Reagan didn't touch it

And whenever election time rolls around, which party invariably attempts to scare
senior citizens with the old canard 'they're going to take your Social Security
benefits away'?

Reality-check time, George: is Social Security a massive, forced wealth-redistribution
from current and future contributors to retirees with little to no fiduciary guarantee
that said contributors will receive the principal back let alone normal interest on that
investment?

Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi scheme?


GeoSynch


As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.

As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.


Aren't these voluntary?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.


Aren't these voluntary?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:
As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.



Aren't these voluntary?


I was never given the option to opt out of corporate welfare
were you?
G

Blind Joni wrote:
As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.



Aren't these voluntary?


I was never given the option to opt out of corporate welfare
were you?
G

play-on wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:



Clyde Slick wrote:


But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
gain independance from.



We didn't fight to become independent of government.
The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
colonies taxing its inhabitants.

And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
adjusted for income/inflation?


We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.

play-on wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:



Clyde Slick wrote:


But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
gain independance from.



We didn't fight to become independent of government.
The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
colonies taxing its inhabitants.

And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
adjusted for income/inflation?


We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.

George Gleason wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's
spending spree



Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it

I love to bring this up. In fact, Carter and Clinton did more to
try to help the working person than most of them, but they were
all but pacifists, so they aren't your typical "politician".

Excluding Clinton and Carter, you get exactly how many Democrats
in the last 50 years?

George Gleason wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's
spending spree



Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it

I love to bring this up. In fact, Carter and Clinton did more to
try to help the working person than most of them, but they were
all but pacifists, so they aren't your typical "politician".

Excluding Clinton and Carter, you get exactly how many Democrats
in the last 50 years?

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


George Gleason wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our
children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's
spending spree




Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social
Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last
50 years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it


I love to bring this up. In fact, Carter and Clinton did more to
try to help the working person than most of them, but they were
all but pacifists, so they aren't your typical "politician".

Excluding Clinton and Carter, you get exactly how many Democrats
in the last 50 years?

34 Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican)

35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat)

36 Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat)

37 Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican)

38 Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr , 1974-77 (Republican)



40 Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican)

41 George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican)



43 George W. Bush, 2001- (Republican)



Carter and Clinton excluded as per your request
cross posts removed
G

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


George Gleason wrote:

GeoSynch wrote:

George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our
children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's
spending spree




Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social
Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch

The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last
50 years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it


I love to bring this up. In fact, Carter and Clinton did more to
try to help the working person than most of them, but they were
all but pacifists, so they aren't your typical "politician".

Excluding Clinton and Carter, you get exactly how many Democrats
in the last 50 years?

34 Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican)

35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat)

36 Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat)

37 Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican)

38 Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr , 1974-77 (Republican)



40 Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican)

41 George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican)



43 George W. Bush, 2001- (Republican)



Carter and Clinton excluded as per your request
cross posts removed
G

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...



We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.


You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
fighting
departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
here any more. When will this commence?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...



We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.


You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
fighting
departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
here any more. When will this commence?

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...



We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.



You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
fighting
departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
here any more. When will this commence?

Actually, four. Thanks for reminding me.

- I pay all of my bills in person or via online banking. 99% of my
current mail is junk/spam anyways. I get all of my important mail
online.
- Fire - no problem. I can live without it, since 90% of all fire
are electrical-related and I make sure that mine work perfectly.
The others - if you don't have sprinkler systems in your house,
you are way behind the times. I do.
- Police? Their job is always to clean up after the fact. The
truth is only YOU can protect your family and self. Read the
laws - the police are charged with protecting the *public*,
not individuals. 1-2 hours response time for a 911 call is
the norm here.
- War on Terror? The chances of me ever having to deal with it
in Los Angeles are zero. Nobody takes this city seriously,
so it's the least likely target in the U.S.(one advantage of
living here). Plus, it has the largest foriegn population
in the U.S., so again, attack here and you just **** off your
own people.

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...



We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.



You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
fighting
departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
here any more. When will this commence?

Actually, four. Thanks for reminding me.

- I pay all of my bills in person or via online banking. 99% of my
current mail is junk/spam anyways. I get all of my important mail
online.
- Fire - no problem. I can live without it, since 90% of all fire
are electrical-related and I make sure that mine work perfectly.
The others - if you don't have sprinkler systems in your house,
you are way behind the times. I do.
- Police? Their job is always to clean up after the fact. The
truth is only YOU can protect your family and self. Read the
laws - the police are charged with protecting the *public*,
not individuals. 1-2 hours response time for a 911 call is
the norm here.
- War on Terror? The chances of me ever having to deal with it
in Los Angeles are zero. Nobody takes this city seriously,
so it's the least likely target in the U.S.(one advantage of
living here). Plus, it has the largest foriegn population
in the U.S., so again, attack here and you just **** off your
own people.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

Why is theft OK if the government does the stealing?

To whit, there is an interesting correspondence between the patterns of
net federal tax outflows and inflows and our recent election results
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html


All the more reason to stop the theft.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

Why is theft OK if the government does the stealing?

To whit, there is an interesting correspondence between the patterns of
net federal tax outflows and inflows and our recent election results
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html


All the more reason to stop the theft.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

If those lovely leftists were so concerned with trying to help people, why
did they set the age for collection of benefits at the age when most
people
were dead?

I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.

What a joke. This time, Ethics has truly left the building.

OT, it's my birthday today.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

If those lovely leftists were so concerned with trying to help people, why
did they set the age for collection of benefits at the age when most
people
were dead?

I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.

What a joke. This time, Ethics has truly left the building.

OT, it's my birthday today.

Shizoid Man"

I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.

There is an elected judge in Texas that indicted himself for a minor
crime, to avoid a more serious indictment. The guy also intends to indict
Delay with the express purpose of unseating him, not because he is guilty of
any crime. And as you all should know by now you can indict a ham sandwich.

Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process. If a memebr is indicted
they will meet and if they think the indictment is NOT just a nuisance action,
then they will act.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Audioist / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Shizoid Man"

I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.

There is an elected judge in Texas that indicted himself for a minor
crime, to avoid a more serious indictment. The guy also intends to indict
Delay with the express purpose of unseating him, not because he is guilty of
any crime. And as you all should know by now you can indict a ham sandwich.

Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process. If a memebr is indicted
they will meet and if they think the indictment is NOT just a nuisance action,
then they will act.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Audioist / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:
Shizoid Man"


I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.


There is an elected judge in Texas that indicted himself for a minor
crime, to avoid a more serious indictment. The guy also intends to indict
Delay with the express purpose of unseating him, not because he is guilty of
any crime. And as you all should know by now you can indict a ham sandwich

providing you can convince a GRAND JURY that the ham sandwich has
committed a crime
..

Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process. If a memebr is indicted
they will meet and if they think the indictment is NOT just a nuisance action,
then they will act.

The point is the REPUBLICANS created this rule to get rid of democrats
now that is about to bite them in the ass they suddenly flip-flop
just like their boss, the flip-flop king
george

WillStG wrote:
Shizoid Man"


I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.


There is an elected judge in Texas that indicted himself for a minor
crime, to avoid a more serious indictment. The guy also intends to indict
Delay with the express purpose of unseating him, not because he is guilty of
any crime. And as you all should know by now you can indict a ham sandwich

providing you can convince a GRAND JURY that the ham sandwich has
committed a crime
..

Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process. If a memebr is indicted
they will meet and if they think the indictment is NOT just a nuisance action,
then they will act.

The point is the REPUBLICANS created this rule to get rid of democrats
now that is about to bite them in the ass they suddenly flip-flop
just like their boss, the flip-flop king
george

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.


Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible for
your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse return
than SSI.

My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.


Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible for
your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse return
than SSI.

My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?

WillStG wrote:
Shizoid Man"


I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.


Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process.

Remember Whitewater?

WillStG wrote:
Shizoid Man"


I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.


Both Party's should not have to worry about indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process.

Remember Whitewater?

indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process.

can you say Impeachment of Clinton?
that was the king of trumped up bull**** partisan harrasment
that seriously hurt a great president distracting him from his real job
George

indictments for purely
partisan reasons, and the rules change is to prevent that kind of BS from
interfering with the legitimate Legislative process.

can you say Impeachment of Clinton?
that was the king of trumped up bull**** partisan harrasment
that seriously hurt a great president distracting him from his real job
George

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
GeoSynch wrote:
George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree


Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch
The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it

Explain what it is you think Presidents can do about such things.

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
GeoSynch wrote:
George Gleason wrote:


We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree


Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch
The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it

Explain what it is you think Presidents can do about such things.