Dems will keep the House and Senate

Superfreak said:
You will get no disagreement with me about investing. The reason I stated tbills is because every time you discuss investing with a lefty, they go off on some tangent about how the money would all have been lost investing in the market.

You and I disagree on the individual accounts. The money I put in should be mine or my heirs. It should never go to the government should I happen to pass away early. Those are MY savings. Not Uncle Sam's
Click to expand...
Who gives a rat fuck what lefties think of investing? They think wealth comes from a donkey's asshole.

As for individual accounts, I agree with you in principle, but also understand that SS is, in the end, a socialist program for retirement, and NOT a federal IRA system. FICA is a TAX, not an IRA. It is our money, but it has been coopted by government for a purpose. Like any tax, we can disagree with or agree with the purposes. I don't mind paying taxes when the money is spent wisely.

In defense of the SS program benefits system, there are people who, for various valid reasons, did not or were unable to contribute enough over their working lifetime to sustain minimal SS payments for the extent of their retirement. There are people who retire early due to health problems, physical disabilities, etc. The system was designed to help those people out, as well as provide retirement income to the rest of us. To be self sustaining, the money to pay for low-end contributors has to come from somewhere. (remember, the idea is to keep SS self sustaining so we don't end up using more and more general funds to keep it afloat.)

Also, keep in mind that if a person does expire early and if they have dependents, then those dependents DO get some (if not all +) of that money back until they reach their majority. If the person expires young, with very young children, the surviving dependent benefits often end up significantly exceeding the individual's contributions - even if we used private investing. And, once again, to be self sustaining, the extra money for surviving dependent benefits has to come from somewhere other than general fund revenues. It is those extra payments without corresponding contributions that, IMO, make thinking of FICA as a tax instead of an IRA palatable.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. You've created a straw man argument. Again, reduce the federal government to its Constitutionally mandated powers, and the size of the government will decrease dramatically. Do you deny this?
2. It was replaced, therefor the first one may be considered a draft. Thomas Jefferson clearly didn't care for Article 11.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, I deny that, since you can't specify which of the government's powers violate the constitution and why. Do you even know what a straw man argument is?

2. The first treaty was in force for four years, after being ratified unanimously by the senate and signed into law by John Adams. Show me where the Constitution declares that to be a draft, or where anybody with a lick of sense would call a treaty a draft because it was replaced by another later. A draft is written in full knowledge that it is the first, and more important, a temporary version to the final. There was no knowledge that the treaty would be broken and a second negotiated. There is no such thing as a retroactive draft. The treaty was the treaty, the final version. Nowhere does it state "this is only a draft to be replaced four years hence."

Jefferson, the champion of the separation of church and state, "clearly didn't care for Article 11." WTF? Are you kidding me?

Clutch at those straws.



that's two
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Population has nothing to do with it. Limit government to its Constitutionally mandated enumerated powers, and it will shrink to less than half of its current size.
2. Why do you cite the draft treaty? The final doesn't have that language.
Click to expand...

I answered this one already, but let me take another opportunity to disabuse you of the asinine notion that the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was a "draft treaty." It was negotiated with the Pasha of Tripoli, who signed it in November, 1796 (I could have sworn I addressed the time line in my last post on the subject). At that point, it ceased being a draft. It had been signed by a foreign head of state, one of he parties to the treaty, and could not be altered without voiding his agreement.

Now try to follow me here, bunky, because you seem a little unclear on the concept of "draft." Those were the words he agreed to. Period, There could be no more revision, and when there can be no more revision, we who can speak and comprehend the king's English refer to that as the final version. At that point, the Senate did not have the option of revising it further. They had a signed treaty. Their options were to ratify it or not to ratify it. They did ratify it.

Unanimously.

And that left John Adams with two alternatives only: sign it into law, or veto it. He did not have the option of revising it. He signed it enthusiastically, and shortly thereafter issued a proclamation lauding the treaty. That is the main point of my argument, while it is important that the ratified treaty becomes part of the supreme law of the land upon its ratification. Since it has never been repealed, remains so today, but there was a more relevant point that your specious argument didn't even attempt to address, which is why your fallacious argument is called a red herring...because it is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue, which is that the president who siggned it was one of thhe founders, and there were seven Senators who had signed either the Declaration of Indepence or the Constitution, making tem founders also. The biggest, most consistent, and easily the most obnoxious lie told by the batshit-crazy, willfully-ignorant, glossolalia-speaking, flaming cosmic asshole evangelical right is that our cointry was founded by Christians who derived their laws from the Bible and Christ's teachings, and who intended this country to be a Christian Nation, despite the clear language of the First Amendment to the contrary (you have to be a real, dumb fuck to misinterpret the first as only providing for keeping the government out of religion. If you comprehend the English language, it also provides for keeping religion out of the government, as if Article VI, Paragraph 3 left any doubt of that ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States[Italics mine].") The ongoing disingenuous claim that we don't know the founders' intent is through the votes of that Senate shown to be the crock of shit it truly is. The president and the seven other founders in the Senate made very clear their intent by voting unanimously to ratify a treaty which debunked the lie that this is a country founded upon christian beliefs. Not only can this nation not prefer one religion over another, it can't prefer religion over non-religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). It doesn't say respecting an establishment of one religion over another. It says respecting an establishment of religion. That means it can't establish any religion, and combined with the proscription of any religious test for holding any office of trust means the moronic rants of the blithering idiots who claim Obama is a Muslim are not only false and specious, but also irrelevant to his qualifications to be president, as are the claims of the racist pinheads known as "birthers," who are absolutely clueless about what being a native born citizen entails, but that's a post for another time.



three down, two to go
 
zoombwaz said:
1. Yes, I deny that, since you can't specify which of the government's powers violate the constitution and why. Do you even know what a straw man argument is?

2. The first treaty was in force for four years, after being ratified unanimously by the senate and signed into law by John Adams. Show me where the Constitution declares that to be a draft, or where anybody with a lick of sense would call a treaty a draft because it was replaced by another later. A draft is written in full knowledge that it is the first, and more important, a temporary version to the final. There was no knowledge that the treaty would be broken and a second negotiated. There is no such thing as a retroactive draft. The treaty was the treaty, the final version. Nowhere does it state "this is only a draft to be replaced four years hence."

Jefferson, the champion of the separation of church and state, "clearly didn't care for Article 11." WTF? Are you kidding me?

Clutch at those straws.



that's two
Click to expand...

1. Here's the first page of a list of federal agencies. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml Most of these are not authorized by the Constitution. Go to the first page of the list of Federal agencies, and tell me how many are authorized by the Constitution. I see about 5 out of 40.
2. They didn't have instant communications back then, and further negotiations would have taken months if not a full year, in the meantime extending hostilities. There's no evidence that the version Tripoli signed had that article in it. Adams signed it in order to expedite the peace process. When time allowed and the US had the upper hand militarily, they removed that Article in its entirety. If they wanted it in there so much, then why did they leave it out? Most sane persons would recognize the dynamic nature of the treaty and call your version a draft.
 
zoombwaz said:
I answered this one already, but let me take another opportunity to disabuse you of the asinine notion that the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was a "draft treaty." It was negotiated with the Pasha of Tripoli, who signed it in November, 1796 (I could have sworn I addressed the time line in my last post on the subject). At that point, it ceased being a draft. It had been signed by a foreign head of state, one of he parties to the treaty, and could not be altered without voiding his agreement.

Now try to follow me here, bunky, because you seem a little unclear on the concept of "draft." Those were the words he agreed to. Period, There could be no more revision, and when there can be no more revision, we who can speak and comprehend the king's English refer to that as the final version. At that point, the Senate did not have the option of revising it further. They had a signed treaty. Their options were to ratify it or not to ratify it. They did ratify it.

Unanimously.

And that left John Adams with two alternatives only: sign it into law, or veto it. He did not have the option of revising it. He signed it enthusiastically, and shortly thereafter issued a proclamation lauding the treaty. That is the main point of my argument, while it is important that the ratified treaty becomes part of the supreme law of the land upon its ratification. Since it has never been repealed, remains so today, but there was a more relevant point that your specious argument didn't even attempt to address, which is why your fallacious argument is called a red herring...because it is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue, which is that the president who siggned it was one of thhe founders, and there were seven Senators who had signed either the Declaration of Indepence or the Constitution, making tem founders also. The biggest, most consistent, and easily the most obnoxious lie told by the batshit-crazy, willfully-ignorant, glossolalia-speaking, flaming cosmic asshole evangelical right is that our cointry was founded by Christians who derived their laws from the Bible and Christ's teachings, and who intended this country to be a Christian Nation, despite the clear language of the First Amendment to the contrary (you have to be a real, dumb fuck to misinterpret the first as only providing for keeping the government out of religion. If you comprehend the English language, it also provides for keeping religion out of the government, as if Article VI, Paragraph 3 left any doubt of that ("The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States[Italics mine].") The ongoing disingenuous claim that we don't know the founders' intent is through the votes of that Senate shown to be the crock of shit it truly is. The president and the seven other founders in the Senate made very clear their intent by voting unanimously to ratify a treaty which debunked the lie that this is a country founded upon christian beliefs. Not only can this nation not prefer one religion over another, it can't prefer religion over non-religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). It doesn't say respecting an establishment of one religion over another. It says respecting an establishment of religion. That means it can't establish any religion, and combined with the proscription of any religious test for holding any office of trust means the moronic rants of the blithering idiots who claim Obama is a Muslim are not only false and specious, but also irrelevant to his qualifications to be president, as are the claims of the racist pinheads known as "birthers," who are absolutely clueless about what being a native born citizen entails, but that's a post for another time.



three down, two to go
Click to expand...

Already addressed in my last post.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Right now the talking heads are certain that Republicans will sweep the House and possibly even the Senate. I don't think that's going to happen and here's why.

For the Senate it's easy to predict why it won't happen. There are 16 senate seats up for election this cycle. 13 of those are held by Democrats, mostly in traditionally democratic States. 3 of those are is states which tend Republican. Ohio, for example, tends slightly Republican but they tend to be establishment Republicans and not Tea Party wackos or Southern wingnuts. In Ohio you have Rob Portman of Cincinnati, vs Lee Fisher of Cleveland. Portman, at present has a lead in the polls but the campaign season is just starting and he has some serious disadvantages, That is, he was President Bush's lead Trade Negotiator that negotiated the Chinese Trade agreement. Prior to that he was President Bush's Budget Director, the former doesn't play well in Ohio and the later....well that doesn't play well anywhere. So Portman is wide open to serious political attacks, his big advantage though is he has more money then Fisher. Kentucky is another example, it leans Republican and the Republican candidate has a lead in the polls but he's also an idiot who's going to get beat to death with some of the stupid things he's said. You have a similiar situation in Nevada where Angle imploded with idiotic comments. In short, of the 16 Senate seats up for grabs Repubs will have to pick up 13 of them to take control of the Senate. Not likely to happen.

The house has greater potential for Republicans as Democrats have taken some big hits in popularity in the last two years but they have some significant problems that will impede their obtaining the 39 additional seats they need.

#1. Gerrymandered districts make those kinds of pick ups difficult in one election cycle. It took two election cycles for Dems to do it.
#2. Dems has a substantial advantage in money to spend in key battles.
#3. Repubs have some serious organizational problems. They are having a serious internal dissent with RNC Chair Michael Steele and this has prevented Repubs from getting out a consistent message.
#4. Repubs are still widely blamed by the public for getting us into the economic mess that Dems have made themselves unpopular for in their attempts to get us out of. The voting public hasn't forgotten this.
#5. Nothing new is coming out of the Republican party. They keep regurgitating the same tired old "Lets cut taxes for the rich" mantra and unpopular Bush era policies.
#6. This lack of new ideas gives Dems to opportunity to label Repubs as "The Party of No" and so far this has been quite affective for Dems as they are defining the Repubs message for them a critical strategic blunder for Repubs. The most feared question Repubs have right now is "What will you do if you get in office?"
#7. This inability by Repubs to prove that they are prepared and have the ability to govern is a serious short coming and considering their abysmal recent history, will give many voters pause to think before voting Republican.
#8. The Tea Party is a lead anchor around the Republican parties neck. The Republican party has been working hard to regain their image as "establishment Republicans" only to have it sabotaged by Tea Party elements. Dems will have a hay day painting the Tea Party element as extremist and the stupid shit some of these tea baggers, like Paul and Angle, have been saying won't help.


Dems are fighting a wave of resentment for their failure to quickly dig us out of the hole that Repubs put us into and fighting such an ideological wave can sweep over some individual candidates who will literally get lost in the tide when it comes to individual campaigns but Republican party problems are to substantial to overcome in one election cycle. The will make significant gains in both houses but they will not win either.
Click to expand...
W R O N G !!!
 
Dixie said:
I think they're up to like 54 right now, still a bunch of votes left to count!
Click to expand...
Republicans scored the biggest party turnover in more than 70 years Tuesday with their win in the House...

Incomplete returns showed the GOP picked up at least 60 House seats and led for four more, far in excess of what was needed for a majority. About two dozen races remained too close to call....
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_election_rdp

:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top