"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 66

02-13-2007, 02:22 PM

"Joe Fischer" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Tue, "no spam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
>>reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
>>recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
>>will just say 'screw this'.
>
> Fortunately there are also self employed paying
> into social security. There are a very large number
> of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
> credit for having kids.
>
>>There is already a fairly large 'under the
>>table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How
>>large
>>do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>
> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
> property tax.

The very succesful self employed have smart accountants and pay less tax as
a percentage of income than joe public.

02-13-2007, 03:26 PM

"Rod Speed" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> following them then it doesn't matter what name they use)
>>>>>>>>>>> those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor
>>>>>>>>>>> as you love yourself.
>
>>>>>>>>>> How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
>>>>>>>>>> nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.
>
>>>>>>>>> Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?
>
>>>>>>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>>>>>> That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.
>
>>>>>>>> Really,
>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>
>>>>>>>> what other rules did he say there were?
>
>>>>>>> Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.
>
>>>>>> IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them.
>
>>>>> Guess which pathetic little rabid fundy has just got egg all over
>>>>> its pathetic little face, as always ?
>
>>>>> Even someone as stupid as you must have noticed the one about the
>>>>> eye of the needle.
>
>>>>> Then there's the one about throwing stones too.
>
>>>>> They aint the only ones either.
>
>>>> You are funny.
>
>>> You are pathetic.
>
>> You are pathetic.
>
> Corse this wouldnt be you repeating yourself would it ?
>
>>>> Those are called parables and they are not rules.
>
>>> Bull**** with that throwing stones line.
>
>> Which is related to the two rules,
>
> Nope.

Sure it is.
>
>> if you love your neighbor like you love yourself you aren't going to
>> stone them.
>
> Mindlessly silly. Stoning to death is one of punishments for some
> crimes, it aint just throwing stones at your neighbours, fool.

I think I may see part of your problem. Let me explain Christians are not
required to follow the old Jewish laws therefore we are not required to
stone anyone.

>
>> Think of it this way;
>
> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought, fundy.

You are the one who relies on insults and catch phases.

>
>> in football you have a rule that covers all personal fouls not one rule
>> against kicking an opponent, another against late hits, another against
>> giving weggies, etc.
>
> Irrelevant to stoning to death for adultery, fool.

See this is where you need to think a little. See we started this talking
about how throwing stones and the two rules. I pointed out how it was
covered then used the football rules to maybe make it simple enough for you
to understand. I guess even football rules are a bit over your head. I'm
sorry but I don't remember the rules to candyland or I might be able to come
up with a rule you know.

>
>>>> Parables are told to show how you should live up to the only two
>>>> rules you are to follow.
>
>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>>>> Thank you for helping proving my point.
>
>>>>> No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bull****.
>
>>>> You did it again.
>
>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> You examples proved that there are only two rules that Christians
>>>> have to follow.
>
>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, rabid fundy.

At least you are using a new phrase.

>
>>>>>>>> Try reading the Bible yourself.
>
>>>>>>> Been there, done that,
>
>>>>>> And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out.
>
>>>>> Just did.
>
>>>> You tried. And failed. Want to try again?
>
>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>>>>> Because they ain't in there.
>
>>>>> Fraid so.
>
>>>> Prove it.
>
>>> Just did.
>
>> And I unproved your proof.
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fundy fantasyland.

Oh well, I guess coming up with more than one new phrase per day would tax
your brain.

>
>> So try again.
>
> Go and **** yourself.

Classic example of the weak minded who can't support their side, insult.
What's calling me another name and next running away?
>
>>>>>> Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.
>
>>>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
>>>> Only in response to someone who does it.
>
>>> Bare faced lie, obvious from your posts to others today alone.
>
>> Again you need to show proof,
>
> I just did, your posts to others that day alone.

I don't see it here, how can I defend my statements if I can't see them?

>
>> I may restate a point because I think someone didn't get it the first
>> time but I don't keep using the same phrase over and over and over.
>
> Bare faced lie.

More insults. good job

>
>> That and insulting people instead of trying to support your position is a
>> sign of a small mind.
>
> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

I only deliberately insult people who have insulted me and when I do I tend
to use their own insults, or similar ones. People maybe insulted by my
opinions or the conclusions I have drawn from their own statements.
>

> You're so stupid that you havent even noticed
> that you did precisely that yourself right there.

And when I talk to a 5 year old I use a lot of small words and when I talk
to a moron I tend to repeat his words back to him that way I'm fairly sure
he understands them.
>
>

02-14-2007, 05:36 AM

>>Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
>>reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
>>recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
>>will just say 'screw this'.
>
> Fortunately there are also self employed paying
> into social security. There are a very large number
> of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
> credit for having kids.

My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer. The
drain will be just too much.

>
>>There is already a fairly large 'under the
>>table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How
>>large
>>do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>
> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
> property tax.
> And if they have employees, there is state and
> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
> taxes,

True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only bring
home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will change. For one
thing if he's getting that big of a shaft think how much the people you are
talking about are getting. They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90%
again.

02-14-2007, 05:36 AM

>>>Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
>>>reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
>>>recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
>>>will just say 'screw this'.
>>
>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying
>> into social security. There are a very large number
>> of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
>> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
>> credit for having kids.
>>
>>>There is already a fairly large 'under the
>>>table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How
>>>large
>>>do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>>
>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>> property tax.
>
> The very succesful self employed have smart accountants and pay less tax
> as a percentage of income than joe public.

With all the tax software out there anyone with a computer can pay a lot
less than the advertised rate.

02-14-2007, 10:33 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When
>>> it reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support
>>> one SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government
>>> expenses they will just say 'screw this'.
>>
>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying
>> into social security. There are a very large number
>> of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
>> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
>> credit for having kids.
>
> My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer. The drain will be just too
> much.

You fools have been claiming that for decades now. It carrys on regardless.

>>> There is already a fairly large 'under the
>>> table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large
>>> do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>>
>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>> property tax.
>> And if they have employees, there is state and
>> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
>> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
>> taxes,

> True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only
> bring home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will change.

Have fun explaining why it didnt in europe when that happened.

And it wont get to that rate in the US anyway.

> For one thing if he's getting that big of a shaft

Wont happen, you watch.

> think how much the people you are talking about are getting.

Neither will that.

> They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90% again.

Not a chance, you watch.

02-14-2007, 11:15 AM

>>>> Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When
>>>> it reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support
>>>> one SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government
>>>> expenses they will just say 'screw this'.
>>>
>>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying
>>> into social security. There are a very large number
>>> of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
>>> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
>>> credit for having kids.
>>
>> My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer. The
>> drain will be just too much.
>
> You fools have been claiming that for decades now. It carrys on
> regardless.

Because the numbers don't lie. Demographics show that the number of
retirees will soon be near equal to the number of tax payers. Right now it
is limping along on life support by sucking money out of the general fund
because the dems sucked the SS fund dry many years ago.

BTW, do you know why the retirement age was set at 65? It was because the
average life spand was, IIRC, 62. That meant that most people were supposed
to die before they could get any money. IOW, it was set up by FDR as a
money maker for the government.

>
>>>> There is already a fairly large 'under the
>>>> table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How
>>>> large
>>>> do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>>>
>>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>>> property tax.
>>> And if they have employees, there is state and
>>> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
>>> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
>>> taxes,
>
>> True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only
>> bring home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will change.
>
> Have fun explaining why it didnt in europe when that happened.

It is happening. Look at France and Germany. The had RIOTS because the
government is trying to trim back some of the goodies the government gives
out because there's not enough money to pay for them. And this with the US
paying for most of their defence from the 40's.

> And it wont get to that rate in the US anyway.

Why not, is there going to be a big die off of old people?

>> For one thing if he's getting that big of a shaft
>
> Wont happen, you watch.

I will be. There's a chance that what will happen will make the retirement
problems in the former USSR look like a mild recession.

>> think how much the people you are talking about are getting.
>
> Neither will that.
>
>> They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90% again.
>
> Not a chance, you watch.

yeah and the income tax will only be applied to the top 1% money makers and
your SS number will never be used as a ID number and he never had sexual
relations with that woman and man will never fly. . .
>
>

02-14-2007, 12:42 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>> Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it reaches the point where
>>>>> you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other
>>>>> government expenses they will just say 'screw this'.

>>>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying into social security.
>>>> There are a very large number of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they effectively
>>>> contribute nothing because they get a tax
>>>> credit for having kids.

>>> My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer. The drain will be just too
>>> much.

>> You fools have been claiming that for decades now. It carrys on regardless.

> Because the numbers don't lie.

No numbers involved in that stupid claim that it cant last much longer.

> Demographics show that the number of retirees will soon be near equal to the number of tax payers.

Pig ignorant lie.

> Right now it is limping along on life support by sucking money out of the
> general fund because the dems sucked the SS fund dry many years ago.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> BTW, do you know why the retirement age was set at 65? It was because the average life spand was,
> IIRC, 62.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> That meant that most people were supposed to die before they could get any money. IOW, it was set
> up by FDR as a money maker for the government.

Another pig ignorant lie.

>>>>> There is already a fairly large 'under the table' and barter economy going out there that is
>>>>> not taxed now. How large do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

>>>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>>>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>>>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>>>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>>>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>>>> property tax.
>>>> And if they have employees, there is state and
>>>> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
>>>> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
>>>> taxes,

>>> True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only
>>> bring home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will change.

>> Have fun explaining why it didnt in europe when that happened.

> It is happening.

No it isnt.

> Look at France and Germany.

It isnt happening there.

> The had RIOTS because the government is trying to trim back some of the goodies the government
> gives out because there's not enough money to pay for them.

Pig ignorant lie. The frogs riot about all sorts of things, and it wasnt about that.

And have fun explaining Holland and scandinavia where they got no riots when that happened.

> And this with the US paying for most of their defence from the 40's.

Another pig ignorant lie.

>> And it wont get to that rate in the US anyway.

> Why not, is there going to be a big die off of old people?

Nope, because the US has a lot more younger people, mostly
due to immigration, legal and illegal and an unemployment rate
of 5% which ensures that most of those are paying their taxes.

>>> For one thing if he's getting that big of a shaft

>> Wont happen, you watch.

> I will be. There's a chance that what will happen will make the
> retirement problems in the former USSR look like a mild recession.

Nope, not a chance. The US economy has always left that one for dead.

In fact its the strength of the US economy that allow it to
afford the military spending that is what sank the USSR
economy beneath the waves when it couldnt keep up.

>>> think how much the people you are talking about are getting.

>> Neither will that.

>>> They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90% again.

>> Not a chance, you watch.

> yeah and the income tax will only be applied to the top 1% money
> makers and your SS number will never be used as a ID number and he never had sexual relations with
> that woman and man will never fly. . .

The US will never again have a top rate of 90%, the world's
moved on forever on those very high rates, even in europe.

02-15-2007, 07:31 AM

>>>>>> Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
>>>>>> reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one
>>>>>> SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government
>>>>>> expenses they will just say 'screw this'.
>
>>>>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying into social security.
>>>>> There are a very large number of people who do pay SS withholding
>>>>> taxes, but they effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
>>>>> credit for having kids.
>
>>>> My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer.
>>>> The drain will be just too much.
>
>>> You fools have been claiming that for decades now. It carrys on
>>> regardless.
>
>> Because the numbers don't lie.
>
> No numbers involved in that stupid claim that it cant last much longer.
>
>> Demographics show that the number of retirees will soon be near equal to
>> the number of tax payers.
>
> Pig ignorant lie.

So your plan is to cose your eyes and plug your ears and maybe the problem
will go a way.
>
>> Right now it is limping along on life support by sucking money out of the
>> general fund because the dems sucked the SS fund dry many years ago.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

So your plan is to cose your eyes and plug your ears and maybe the problem
will go a way.

>
>> BTW, do you know why the retirement age was set at 65? It was because
>> the average life spand was, IIRC, 62.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

Check the actuary tables of the time for life expectancy of the day.

before they could get any money. IOW, it was set
>> up by FDR as a money maker for the government.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

Only one insult line today?
>
>>>>>> There is already a fairly large 'under the table' and barter economy
>>>>>> going out there that is not taxed now. How large do you thing its
>>>>>> going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?
>
>>>>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>>>>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>>>>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>>>>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>>>>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>>>>> property tax.
>>>>> And if they have employees, there is state and
>>>>> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
>>>>> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
>>>>> taxes,
>
>>>> True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only
>>>> bring home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will
>>>> change.
>
>>> Have fun explaining why it didnt in europe when that happened.
>
>> It is happening.
>
> No it isnt.
>
>> Look at France and Germany.
>
> It isnt happening there.
>
>> The had RIOTS because the government is trying to trim back some of the
>> goodies the government gives out because there's not enough money to pay
>> for them.
>
> Pig ignorant lie. The frogs riot about all sorts of things, and it wasnt
> about that.

The last ones were not but read a little history.

>
> And have fun explaining Holland and scandinavia where they got no riots
> when that happened.

Ok, because they don't have large populations of immigrants sucking up their
money. Since you are not a student of history I'll tell you that Germany
took in a lot of poor Germans when the east joined the west.
>
>> And this with the US paying for most of their defence from the 40's.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

So now you are saying that the US did not provide Germany and France from
the USSR and its allies during the cold war. I knew you didn't know much
about history but I didn't know you were THAT ignorant. What'd you do drop
out of school in the 3rd grade?

>>> And it wont get to that rate in the US anyway.
>
>> Why not, is there going to be a big die off of old people?
>
> Nope, because the US has a lot more younger people, mostly
> due to immigration, legal and illegal and an unemployment rate
> of 5% which ensures that most of those are paying their taxes.

So we are going to double our population in the next few years? Remember
those new workers will have to provide for themselves, their families, the
usual government cost (roads and the like) AND the retired people. Check
out the federal budget today and see how much of the tax dollar is going to
social programs.

>
>>>> For one thing if he's getting that big of a shaft
>
>>> Wont happen, you watch.
>
>> I will be. There's a chance that what will happen will make the
>> retirement problems in the former USSR look like a mild recession.
>
> Nope, not a chance. The US economy has always left that one for dead.
>
Your failure in history is showing again. Try a google search on the "Great
Depression". Different cause but mostly will have the same effect.

> In fact its the strength of the US economy that allow it to
> afford the military spending that is what sank the USSR
> economy beneath the waves when it couldnt keep up.

And it will be the social spending that will sink the US "economy beneath
the waves" if we don't get it under control. Which with politicians using
tax dollars to buy votes to stay in office I don't see that happening.
>

>>>> think how much the people you are talking about are getting.
>
>>> Neither will that.
>
>>>> They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90% again.
>
>>> Not a chance, you watch.
>
>> yeah and the income tax will only be applied to the top 1% money
>> makers and your SS number will never be used as a ID number and he never
>> had sexual relations with that woman and man will never fly. . .
>
> The US will never again have a top rate of 90%, the world's
> moved on forever on those very high rates, even in europe.

Not forever just until the governments need that money.

>
>

02-15-2007, 09:31 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>>>> Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it reaches the point where
>>>>>>> you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the
>>>>>>> other government expenses they will just say 'screw this'.

>>>>>> Fortunately there are also self employed paying into social
>>>>>> security. There are a very large number of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
>>>>>> effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax credit for having kids.

>>>>> My point still stands. The system can not be supported much longer. The drain will be just
>>>>> too much.

>>>> You fools have been claiming that for decades now. It carrys on regardless.

>>> Because the numbers don't lie.

>> No numbers involved in that stupid claim that it cant last much longer.

>>> Demographics show that the number of retirees will soon be near equal to the number of tax
>>> payers.

>> Pig ignorant lie.

> So your plan is to cose your eyes and plug your ears and maybe the problem will go a way.

Nope, I realise that you are lying about those numbers and that it aint gunna stop any decade soon.

>>> Right now it is limping along on life support by sucking money out of the general fund because
>>> the dems sucked the SS fund dry many years ago.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> So your plan is to cose your eyes and plug your ears and maybe the problem will go a way.

Nope, I realise that you are lying about those numbers and that it aint gunna stop any decade soon.

>>> BTW, do you know why the retirement age was set at 65? It was because the average life spand
>>> was, IIRC, 62.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> Check the actuary tables of the time for life expectancy of the day.

Irrelevant to why that particular age was chosen. And you're just plain wrong anyway.

>>> before they could get any money. IOW, it was set
>>> up by FDR as a money maker for the government.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> Only one insult line today?

You dont qualify for anything else.

>>>>>>> There is already a fairly large 'under the table' and barter
>>>>>>> economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large do you
>>>>>>> thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

>>>>>> It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
>>>>>> self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
>>>>>> a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
>>>>>> 15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
>>>>>> tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
>>>>>> property tax.
>>>>>> And if they have employees, there is state and
>>>>>> federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
>>>>>> on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
>>>>>> taxes,

>>>>> True but when Joe Smuck can look at his pay stub and see he's only
>>>>> bring home $1 out of every $2 he's worked for I think things will change.

>>>> Have fun explaining why it didnt in europe when that happened.

>>> It is happening.

>> No it isnt.

>>> Look at France and Germany.

>> It isnt happening there.

>>> The had RIOTS because the government is trying to trim back some of the goodies the government
>>> gives out because there's not enough money to pay for them.

>> Pig ignorant lie. The frogs riot about all sorts of things, and it wasnt about that.

> The last ones were not but read a little history.

The frogs have never ever rioted about that. The krauts in spades.

>> And have fun explaining Holland and scandinavia where they got no riots when that happened.

> Ok, because they don't have large populations of immigrants sucking up their money.

Pig ignorant lie.

> Since you are not a student of history

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

> I'll tell you that Germany took in a lot of poor Germans when the east joined the west.

No news to me. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to find plenty of
comments I made about that at the time using groups.google, if someone was
actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

And they STILL didnt riot about half of their income going in tax at that time.

>>> And this with the US paying for most of their defence from the 40's.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> So now you are saying that the US did not provide Germany and France from the USSR and its allies
> during the cold war.

Nope, that was a comment about who PAID for that, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

> I knew you didn't know much about history but I didn't know you were THAT ignorant. What'd you do
> drop out of school in the 3rd grade?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>> And it wont get to that rate in the US anyway.

>>> Why not, is there going to be a big die off of old people?

>> Nope, because the US has a lot more younger people, mostly
>> due to immigration, legal and illegal and an unemployment rate
>> of 5% which ensures that most of those are paying their taxes.

> So we are going to double our population in the next few years?

Dont need to ensure that fund isnt going away any decade soon.

> Remember those new workers will have to provide for themselves, their families, the usual
> government cost (roads and the like) AND the retired people.

Been happening ever since that operation started.

> Check out the federal budget today and see how much of the tax dollar is going to social programs.

Irrelevant to whether that fund is going away any decade soon.

And western europe has been spending a hell of a lot bigger
percentage of theirs on stuff like that and continue to do so fine.

>>>>> For one thing if he's getting that big of a shaft

>>>> Wont happen, you watch.

>>> I will be. There's a chance that what will happen will make the
>>> retirement problems in the former USSR look like a mild recession.

>> Nope, not a chance. The US economy has always left that one for dead.

> Your failure in history is showing again.

Nope.

> Try a google search on the "Great Depression".

The US economy STILL left the USSR economy for dead even then.

> Different cause but mostly will have the same effect.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.

>> In fact its the strength of the US economy that allow it to
>> afford the military spending that is what sank the USSR
>> economy beneath the waves when it couldnt keep up.

> And it will be the social spending that will sink the US "economy
> beneath the waves" if we don't get it under control.

Have fun explaining how come that hasnt happened in
western europe where they spend FAR more on that stuff.

> Which with politicians using tax dollars to buy votes to stay in office I don't see that
> happening.

Corse it wont, and the US economy will carry on regardless anyway.

With a 5% unemployment rate, its doing fine.

>>>>> think how much the people you are talking about are getting.

>>>> Neither will that.

>>>>> They'll have to raise the top tax rate to 90% again.

>>>> Not a chance, you watch.

>>> yeah and the income tax will only be applied to the top 1% money
>>> makers and your SS number will never be used as a ID number and he
>>> never had sexual relations with that woman and man will never fly.
>>> . .

>> The US will never again have a top rate of 90%, the world's
>> moved on forever on those very high rates, even in europe.

> Not forever just until the governments need that money.

Fantasy, the voters wont wear it again, you watch.