>Even with the modest tax increase put into place, tax rates are still at or near their lowest points in 60 years. It's why I can't take you guys seriously when you complain about "sky-high" taxes.
>> and don't modify our unbelievably absurd spending habits.
I looked at the last two. What they, and you, are saying is... In 2011
you earned $100,000 and spent $150,000. In 2012 You earned $100,000
and spent $125,000. Good for you - but you still owe me $75,000. In
2013 I want you to make $100,000 and spend $25,000 so you can pay me
what you owe.
>> I wasn't concerned because my IRA was increasing every month in spite
>> of my withdrawals. I became conserned when it started decreasing in
>> 2008 and has never completely recovered. I blame that on the one where
>> the buck stopped starting in 2008.
>Interesting. Barack Obama became president in January 2009.
And from 2008 when he was elected, within 5 months it had dropped
$100,000 - it's only down $99,000 as I type - whoopdedo.
>> Your analogy was to blame Bush for a declining economy. I said you
>> must draw the same conclusion about the declining economy under Obie.
>> It is the only logical construct of your analogy.
>Pssst. The economy has been in (sluggish) recovery for some time now.
As I mentioned earlier I have recovered $1,000 of my $100,000 loss. I
>And there's this factoid:
Yes, he has replaced almost 90% of the jobs lost in his term. I
believe that is still a loss.
>> By your conclusion SS was fixed during Bill Clinton's term.
>It certainly wasn't broken at that time. It's actually not broken today, either; all of the problems are still in the future.
Is it your philosophy that you will died before that happens so you
won't do anything about it now? SUppose you don't die before that
>> That is not the fact. Without fine tuning SS is a Ponzi Scheme.
>A Ponzi Scheme is illegal. Your argument is invalid before it even gets started.
Being illegal does not change the fact. With your stated approval SS
depends on payout by future generations - that's a Ponzi scheme.
>> By your not answering the question I must presume no civil liberties
>> have been eroded. I will have to change that opinion if you actually
>> answer the question.
>The PATRIOT Act for but one glaring example.
The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) is an Act of
the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush
on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter backronym
(USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by)
Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001.
The act, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th,
significantly reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies'
gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the
Secretary of the Treasury???s authority to regulate financial
transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and
entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and
immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants
suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the
definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging
the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act???s expanded law
enforcement powers can be applied.
So, are you saying that the act infringed on your rights to become a
terrorist? Or that your rights to employ illegals were infringed? Just
how did that act affect your personal civil liberties?