Some Good Things George W Bush Has Done Domestically

Can someone say religious fanatic/extremist?

sure, Bush is great for religious nuts who think women are not equal to men, rich people who drive by starving children without empathy, corporations are making out fine too.

someone remembers Bush hugging someone after 911, hello, he and his buddys tried to STOP the investigation into why 911i happened, so he doesn't give a shit about you or he's guilty of something, of course that something is his vanity war, murder for profit, anyone who does not want the reasons/evidence why we went to war brought out into the open is crazy, but the republicans are trying to block that too. What in the hell is the matter with you?

Well he is just proving how compasionate Republicans are. And remember he called me a Leach too.

I can't speak for that guy, but I've contributed a good deal of money to private charities this year. (of course, I'm not a republican.. but I didn't donate money based on my political affiliation)

Yet, I still do not believe in excessive government welfare systems. I believe that private charities tend to make better use of the money.

And I still don't think you've given me a reason why I should be forced to contribute money every month from my paycheck, to social security for a "retirement account" which I will never be able to withdraw from.

Do you have any logical argument for why I should give up the money that I work for, besides the fact that you want it?

In 1929, when Hoover caused the Stock Market to crash, Churches and Private Charities were overloaded with millions of Americans seeking help

They could not handle so many people.

They Shut down,.


Which is why President Franklin Roosevelt started all the programs he did including Social Security. He saw that the Churches and Private organizations could not handle so many people.

As for your question, which is a leading question... Because the Law says so.

"Mom, why do I have to go out and play?"

"Because I said so"

just like that, just like that. oh yea Just like that. its Just like that

Hi5 and all that good stuff.

Hoover did not cause the stock market to crash. However, he certainly DID greatly exacerbate the problem, by hiking personal income taxes WAY up.

However, the stock market now has safeguards in place that would make such a crash impossible.




Indeed. He made a plan that was originally intended to be temporary, to deal with the immediate situation. However, it was not intended to grow into the massive beast it has become.

But, the fact is, the system is GUARANTEED to collapse. Now, I don't know how old you are, so maybe you're old enough that its collapse won't impact you.. But it'll impact. Isn't it kind of selfish of YOU to say that it's just too bad that I'm going to be screwed by this?

Do you even care that I'm forced to give money to a retirement fund that will not be there when I retire?



So, if we change the law, then there's no longer any reason for me to donate to social security?

Seems like we should change that law then.

You need to go visit some disabled people who will be in the street just because YOU do not want to pay your taxes.

And when George the Second is successful in destroying the only means for disabled people to exist, I want you to go into the streets and see all the New Homeless because you just cannot be bothered to pay your fair share to Social Security.

You are so mean spirited.

I believe this thread needs to be closed.

Ok.. two questions here.

1) Just out of curiosity, how would privitization of retirement funds in social security put all of the disabled people onto the streets?

2) What will those people do, supposing that Bush does nothing (which I'm sure he will, much to my dismay) and the system collapses in a decade or two?

This post needs to be closed.

Just so ya know, Magnum, I certainly don't harbor any ill will towards you. I don't want to see you out on the street.

I believe some of your beliefs are misguided, but I still respect your right to have them.

uh oh

Please don't mistake the statement as being one of not caring for other people. I believe in donating to charity, and helping people out. But I believe that doing so should be my choice. I mean, hell.. I do it on top of the forced donations the government takes from me. I'm a believer in the "No man is an island" idea.

But, it should not be my legal responsibility to do so. I believe in personal freedom, and part of that is economic freedom. I should be able to decide whether I want to help my fellow man.

As for the possibility of "bad luck"... I believe in preparing for such situations. I save and invest my money. I do not believe that other people are responsible for taking care of me.

If I really do somehow have such bad luck that all of my preparations fail, then that's too bad.. Bad things happen. It'd be NICE if other people help me, as I help other people.. but they should not be forced to do so against their will. It's not their responsibility.

heh, I wasn't saying that I necessarilly believed in it.. I was just pointing out that Jefferson did.

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

But in the end, when Scrooge became good.. it was his own choice.

The story wouldn't be very heartwarming if instead of Scrooge changing, the tax guy just came, took all his money, and gave it to bob cratchet, now would it?

I didn't provide any commentary whatsoever

you must be hearing ghosts

What a thread and I am amazed that there are any responses at all considering the title!

I believe you do harbor Ill-will for me.

And again I repeat this thread needs to be closed

Well Said.

I take it exactly as it reads - and I stand firmly behind my earlier comment.

I doubt that Magnum, or any other person in a similar situation, ended up in their particular situation by choice. Many were (and still are) hard working citizens who contributed into a system that was designed to act as a safety net in the event the unthinkable happens.

Noone wants anyone else to take care of them. I prefer to wipe my own ass, thank you - but there will come a day (hopefully far, far, off) where I may need someone else to do that because I cannot. That protection should be there, period.

There is no minimum age requirement for one to be disabled - it can happen at anytime, to anyone. Saying that you are 'prepared for it' by investing is fine and dandy for someone who *can* - but, what about those who can't? What about those who never had the opportunity to work? Where, exactly, would you tell them to go?

If all of your preparations failed, which I truly hope they do not, you would be fine, because for all those years you've paid into the system, now you can utilize the benefits and not have to live on the streets in a wheelchair begging for spare change.

'Too bad' just doesn't cut it with me, call me a bleeding heart liberal all you want - but that attitude is just plain cruel in my eyes.

My two cents --- 'cause I'm on a posting spree, lately?

My two cents regarding the last few posts:

Magnum, Roland doesn't harbor you any ill-will.

Nobody is anybody else's responsibility ... unless they decide to take that responsibility on.

Nobody would suggest, for instance, Magnum, that you should fork over whatever funding you have to the guy on the other side of town who is more disabled and more worse-off than you are, would they? And are you doing that, Magnum? Is there anybody anywhere who's worse off than you are, whose suffering could be relieved by just a little more effort or suffering or parsimony on your part? Is there someone currently starving to death or dying of AIDS or quadraplegic and having a final, terminal recurrence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma ... is there someone like that (there are at least thousands, believe me) that you could help by diverting some of whatever money you're getting, to assist with their needs? If so, you must be harboring them an awful lot of ill will, right? No? Well, what, then?

So why should Roland have to fork over ... well, you know where I'm going with this, Magnum.

There are indeed laws and taxations that our society has put into place to succor the more unfortunate among us. And we can agree with those laws and taxations and go along with them --- for whatever reasons ---- or we can disagree with those laws and taxations and fight against them --- for whatever reason. For what we believe is the good of ourselves and the "greater good" of society as we define it in this country. But, look ... the idea that, ultimately ...

See, the thing is ... we just, you see ...

Ah --- to hell with it!

Ellie Edo (who totally rocks, btw) already went into this w/r/t people starving in Africa and so on ... and ...

And, I ... uh ... look:

I don't dislike Roland, but I don't necessarily like him, either: I don't know the man at all. The same is true, for me, of you, dear Magnum. I certainly don't enjoy agreeing with ol' Rollie for agreement's sake, is my point. But to say that he harbors you ill will because he'd rather not economically support you? Even if that lack of support meant that you would starve to death? I'm sorry, but that's not what I --- just li'l ol' me, Shoeshine Girl --- consider harboring ill-will.

Because there's a postive and there's a negative, yes; but there's also a neutral.

If someone gives me two scoops of mint chocolate-chip ice cream in a toasted waffle cone? That's positive. If someone decides they'd rather let me drown than ruin their $5000 Armani suit by jumping in the water to save me? That's rather uncharitable of them, sure, but it's not harboring ill will: it's neutral. Now, if someone comes up to me on the street and stabs me in the belly with a hunting knife? That is negative, that is harboring ill will. That, as they say in my neighborhood, is some mean-ass shit.

Eh?

At the very least, we need to keep a reign on what meaning we're assigning to the words we're using, okay?

I mean, quick, before Chip Midnight jumps back in and does it for us!