The Danger of Democrats....

[Dot Com]

Now you have degenerated into outright lying. You have posted a thread about socialism and America but refuse to answer whether Social Security is socialism or with the lie that it is rhetoric. It is a yes or no answer. You refuse to answer plain yes or no questions by falsely claiming they are rhetoric.
Go back to your flushing poop down the toilet topic, it suits you better.

^ that

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you have the brain of a rabbit you'd think so. Every sane adult who ever lived under it knows it doesn't.

So, you hate Social Security?

Why do you hate the United States Constitution?

Article 1, section 8, enumerates the authority of the federal government.

Did you find 'insurance' and /or welfare therein?


So......you're a Socialist, huh?


Isn't that what I posited in the OP?

Stop asking me questions. I would be glad to answer any you ask, but first, you have to answer the ones I asked you. As usual, you will spend the entire day and post numerous posts in you weasel-like way of evading the answering of questions whose answer knock your thesis into the dirt where they belong.

The questions for the OP.

Do you think Social Security is an example of socialism at work in America?

Does Social Security have a negative impact on America?

Was the FDR idea for an Interstate Highway System program that was implemented by the great General and President Eisenhower a socialist program and did it have a negative impact on America?

There was no question, you dunce....it was rhetoric.


As a Roosevelt-groupie, you must feel about the Constitution the way FDR did....he hated it.

Now you have degenerated into outright lying. You have posted a thread about socialism and America but refuse to answer whether Social Security is socialism or with the lie that it is rhetoric. It is a yes or no answer. You refuse to answer plain yes or no questions by falsely claiming they are rhetoric.
Go back to your flushing poop down the toilet topic, it suits you better.

"Now you have degenerated into outright lying."

I never lie, you slime.


I said that asking you why you hate the Constitution was a rhetorical question.

It was.

Rhetorical: asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
Google

The answer is clear and evidence.

Don't lie about me again.

 

[Camp]

a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

This is the kind of crap PoliticalChic loves to use. She will no doubt claim it is a true fact and can not be disputed. The point she counts on for people perhaps not to notice is the distortion. Of course, the first person into the program has a distinct advantage and that is magnified by the old age of the person, in this case, Ida May Fuller. Who could predict Ida May Fuller would live to be 100 years old. What is not pointed out are all the folks who pay into Social Security and pass away before they collect a return or the folks who retire on Social Security and pass away shortly later long before they collect what they put into the program.
PC is pissed off that Ida lived to be100.

"This is the kind of crap PoliticalChic loves to use. She will no doubt claim it is a true fact and can not be disputed."

It's a fact and cannot be disputed,you fool.

Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History


I'm never wrong.....
Social Security History

Truth and facts are easy to distort into a false narrative and that is exactly what you do. You use one arbitrary example to criticize an entire program. To portray an accurate truth you would have to include all the folks who put into Social Security at the same time as Ida but did not live long enough to collect what they put in. Ida just happened to get the first check out of the batch of 1,000 processed.

 

[Dot Com]

a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

This is the kind of crap PoliticalChic loves to use. She will no doubt claim it is a true fact and can not be disputed. The point she counts on for people perhaps not to notice is the distortion. Of course, the first person into the program has a distinct advantage and that is magnified by the old age of the person, in this case, Ida May Fuller. Who could predict Ida May Fuller would live to be 100 years old. What is not pointed out are all the folks who pay into Social Security and pass away before they collect a return or the folks who retire on Social Security and pass away shortly later long before they collect what they put into the program.
PC is pissed off that Ida lived to be100.

"This is the kind of crap PoliticalChic loves to use. She will no doubt claim it is a true fact and can not be disputed."

It's a fact and cannot be disputed,you fool.

Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History


I'm never wrong.....
Social Security History

Truth and facts are easy to distort into a false narrative and that is exactly what you do. You use one arbitrary example to criticize an entire program. To portray an accurate truth you would have to include all the folks who put into Social Security at the same time as Ida but did not live long enough to collect what they put in. Ida just happened to get the first check out of the batch of 1,000 processed.

You nailed it.

PoliSpice used one instance to broad brush an entire program. How rw of her

 

[Camp]

So, you hate Social Security?

Why do you hate the United States Constitution?

Article 1, section 8, enumerates the authority of the federal government.

Did you find 'insurance' and /or welfare therein?


So......you're a Socialist, huh?


Isn't that what I posited in the OP?

Stop asking me questions. I would be glad to answer any you ask, but first, you have to answer the ones I asked you. As usual, you will spend the entire day and post numerous posts in you weasel-like way of evading the answering of questions whose answer knock your thesis into the dirt where they belong.

The questions for the OP.

Do you think Social Security is an example of socialism at work in America?

Does Social Security have a negative impact on America?

Was the FDR idea for an Interstate Highway System program that was implemented by the great General and President Eisenhower a socialist program and did it have a negative impact on America?

There was no question, you dunce....it was rhetoric.


As a Roosevelt-groupie, you must feel about the Constitution the way FDR did....he hated it.

Now you have degenerated into outright lying. You have posted a thread about socialism and America but refuse to answer whether Social Security is socialism or with the lie that it is rhetoric. It is a yes or no answer. You refuse to answer plain yes or no questions by falsely claiming they are rhetoric.
Go back to your flushing poop down the toilet topic, it suits you better.

"Now you have degenerated into outright lying."

I never lie, you slime.


I said that asking you why you hate the Constitution was a rhetorical question.

It was.

Rhetorical: asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
Google

The answer is clear and evidence.

Don't lie about me again.

I will call you a liar whenever I think you are lying. Nobody is 'ascared of you. You talk the talk just barely, but walking the walk is beyond you ability'.

You still can not or will not answer simple yes or no questions about the opening sentence of this stupid thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Democrats, Liberals, Progressives have the very same outcomes planned for society as did the Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and Socialists.



So.....is it an exaggeration to note that all of the above represent an existential danger to American society?

"Is this too extreme a statement? Perhaps not, given that learned historians of the communist experience in the twentieth century had estimated that in the name of building the bright, beautiful socialist society of the future as many as 150 million to possibly 200 million unarmed, innocent men, women and children were shot, tortured, starved, or worked to death in labor camps as “enemies of the people.”


Estimates suggest that as many as 64 to 68 million people may have died at the hands of the communist regime in these ways during the nearly 75 years of the Soviet Union. Others have suggested that as many as 80 million of such innocent people may have been killed, again, from starvation, torture, labor camp work or execution in China from 1949 when the communist regime came to power to 1976 when Mao Zedong died."
Communism's Legacy: Tyranny, Terror, and Torture | Richard M. Ebeling



Democrats/Liberals are a lite-iteration of every other totalitarian regime of the 20th century, and, as such.....

...a danger to America and American society.

 

[Camp]

A real danger in and for America is the promotion of distorted misinformation by extremist, whether on the left or the right. When people tell you their opinions must be accepted or there will be dire consequences red flags should go up. Caution, is the opinion reliant on objective facts or faith in an ideology? Typically, when professionals analyze topics of strategic import they prefer on objective fact based opinions instead of ideological or philosophical input. They know how to recognize arbitrary random data from statistically provable data.
Bloggers and blogger types who narcissistically demand respect for their intellectual knowledge are the last people that should be paid attention to when they represent extreme political positions and ideas.

 

[rhodescholar]

Your first sentence begins your post with a spin, misinformation, and partisan talking points. "It is a failed program..." is how you start.

The SS program is functionally bankrupt. If you weren't so dedicated to insulting people and actually stuck to the facts, you'd know that, as most people who have read up on it know. In 20 years the fund will be depleted, because the country's population has aged, just as it has in many other Western democracies.

It has supported millions upon millions of senior American citizens for 77 years. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do when it was first instigated.

It was created in the aftermath of the great depression, but even then there were many economists who were strongly against it. Had you taken a basic macro-economics and history course, you'd also know this. That it managed to do so was simply because of 2 items that are no longer in place: 1) americans are living well past 50 or 55, roughly the age of death for people in the 1920s/30s 2) the population grew massively from 100 MM to 325 MM. This rate of growth is not sustainable, at least in a country where you would also want to retain a high standard of living and not endure mass starvation.

Without making predictions and speculations for the future, explain how Social Security has "failed" and as an add-on, explain what would have happened to those millions and millions of Americans who relied on Social Security for survival and dignity for the last 77 years.

I did, read above.

 

[rhodescholar]

A real danger in and for America is the promotion of distorted misinformation by extremist, whether on the left or the right. When people tell you their opinions must be accepted or there will be dire consequences red flags should go up. Caution, is the opinion reliant on objective facts or faith in an ideology?

From someone who starts a post with "Your first sentence begins your post with a spin, misinformation, and partisan talking points.", that's rather hilarious.

 

[rhodescholar]

...in this case, Ida May Fuller. Who could predict Ida May Fuller would live to be 100 years old. What is not pointed out are all the folks who pay into Social Security and pass away before they collect a return or the folks who retire on Social Security and pass away shortly later long before they collect what they put into the program. PC is pissed off that Ida lived to be100.

What you need is a class in macro-economics and actuary science.

If you had a clue, the amount a person who works 45 years or so and retires at 65 and lives to 90 will collect is much more than they pay in. In a system where that is rare, it works out - but given that FAR more people today are living to age 90 and beyond, there are a lot of people collecting much more than they paid in. To anyone with brains, this system was deficient by construct; any instance where the population of workers ceased expanding, with more retirees who are living longer, knows that it would collapse upon itself without massive influxes of outside funding.

 

[Camp]

Your first sentence begins your post with a spin, misinformation, and partisan talking points. "It is a failed program..." is how you start.

The SS program is functionally bankrupt. If you weren't so dedicated to insulting people and actually stuck to the facts, you'd know that, as most people who have read up on it know. In 20 years the fund will be depleted, because the country's population has aged, just as it has in many other Western democracies.

It has supported millions upon millions of senior American citizens for 77 years. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do when it was first instigated.

It was created in the aftermath of the great depression, but even then there were many economists who were strongly against it. Had you taken a basic macro-economics and history course, you'd also know this. That it managed to do so was simply because of 2 items that are no longer in place: 1) americans are living well past 50 or 55, roughly the age of death for people in the 1920s/30s 2) the population grew massively from 100 MM to 325 MM. This rate of growth is not sustainable, at least in a country where you would also want to retain a high standard of living and not endure mass starvation.

Without making predictions and speculations for the future, explain how Social Security has "failed" and as an add-on, explain what would have happened to those millions and millions of Americans who relied on Social Security for survival and dignity for the last 77 years.

I did, read above.

You claim you answered but you did not do as requested, without using predictions and speculations for the future. The claim made was that Social Security has failed. You are not answering that claim, you are predicting that Social Security will fail based on your assumptions, beliefs, predictions, etc. You have the word scholar in your screen name. Do you not recognize the difference "has been a failure" and "will be a failure"? Perhaps you could take off the arrogant narcissist hat for a few moments and use those scholarly skills to research how Social Security HAS BEEN a failure, as in past tense.

 

[rhodescholar]

You claim you answered but you did not do as requested, without using predictions and speculations for the future. The claim made was that Social Security has failed. You are not answering that claim, you are predicting that Social Security will fail based on your assumptions, beliefs, predictions, etc. You have the word scholar in your screen name. Do you not recognize the difference "has been a failure" and "will be a failure"? Perhaps you could take off the arrogant narcissist hat for a few moments and use those scholarly skills to research how Social Security HAS BEEN a failure, as in past tense.

It was created by people who KNEW that it could not be sustained, so it SHOULD have been a TEMPORARY program. That it provided an income stream for a certain, temporary period of time does NOT make it "success." It is like being a bank robber for 5 years before being captured and executed; one knowingly begins conducting an action that they KNOW will lead to a failure - while it worked for a time - does not mean it was a success.

If you continue with the juvenile comments covering my ID and/or other deflective nonsense, you will be ignored.

 

[Camp]

You claim you answered but you did not do as requested, without using predictions and speculations for the future. The claim made was that Social Security has failed. You are not answering that claim, you are predicting that Social Security will fail based on your assumptions, beliefs, predictions, etc. You have the word scholar in your screen name. Do you not recognize the difference "has been a failure" and "will be a failure"? Perhaps you could take off the arrogant narcissist hat for a few moments and use those scholarly skills to research how Social Security HAS BEEN a failure, as in past tense.

It was created by people who KNEW that it could not be sustained, so it SHOULD have been a TEMPORARY program. That it provided an income stream for a certain, temporary period of time does NOT make it "success." It is like being a bank robber for 5 years before being captured and executed; one knowingly begins conducting an action that they KNOW will lead to a failure - while it worked for a time - does not mean it was a success.

If you continue with the juvenile comments covering my ID and/or other deflective nonsense, you will be ignored.

80 years is not tempory you fool. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

[playtime]

damn those police, firefighters, public works depts.... & don't get me started on the military..............

I'll not 'get you started'....

...it is the intelligent folks I'd rather hear from.

OK?

lol... you voted for trump. 'nuff said.

m'k?