# Do Democrats know...



## glew (Nov 15, 2010)

Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?


----------



## The Infidel (Nov 15, 2010)

glew said:


> Do they balance out the bad things?





Ummmm 




NO!


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

glew said:


> Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?



A good way to answer your question is to ask ourselves what major programs championed by the Democrats do people want to get rid of?

Social Security?

Medicare? 

Medicaid?

Unemployment? 

Food and product safety standards? 

Obama's healthcare?

The answer to all of those is a resounding........





*NO*


----------



## glew (Nov 16, 2010)

> Social Security?
> 
> Medicare?
> 
> ...



Oh...but we are getting rid of those...just very slowly...Do you really think those socialist programs will be around in the next 20-30 years?  Not very likely if the finacial system collapses.  Also, those programs have moved sooo far away from their intent, that support for them will be impossible soon.  Just look at how the "socialist" programs are working in Europe right now.  Will we be next?


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 16, 2010)

ahahahahahahah

whos we, you got a mouse in your pocket?


Quit your caviling.

The American people are not with you cons


----------



## glew (Nov 16, 2010)

Also DaGoose...How does it feel to be in a union that sucks the blood out of the very industry that supports it?  Perhaps abetter question is, how does it feel to "get yours" on the backs of future electricians simply because YOU wanted more and more?


----------



## MajinLink (Nov 16, 2010)

glew said:


> > Social Security?
> >
> > Medicare?
> >
> ...


 Social Security will not put us in debt for almost 30 more years. You have to be a fool to think we'll just get rid of unemployment. Food and safety standards abolished? are you retarded? 

Medicaid, Medicare, and many parts of "Obamacare" will eventually be phased out. Not for free market healthcare, but Medicare for all in similar fashion to Canada's Medicare or Britain's NHS.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 16, 2010)

Glew how does it feel to be full of shit?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

glew said:


> Also DaGoose...How does it feel to be in a union that sucks the blood out of the very industry that supports it?  Perhaps abetter question is, how does it feel to "get yours" on the backs of future electricians simply because YOU wanted more and more?



You are simply showing your ignorance of unions, what they've accomplished and what they stand for. But to detail that would require an entire new thread.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

glew said:


> > Social Security?
> >
> > Medicare?
> >
> ...



Please back up your claim that support for a program like Social Security is eroding, let alone becoming impossible. 

Of course.....you would NEVER take part in such a "socialist" program, would you? You would never be so hypocritical as to sign up for it when your turn comes?


----------



## glew (Nov 16, 2010)

> You are simply showing your ignorance of unions, what they've accomplished and what they stand for. But to detail that would require an entire new thread.



You must have forgotten about the US auto industry...or the steel industry.  Over the last 50 years, it hasn't been about workers rights or working conditions, but about how much more you can squeeze out of your evil boss.



> Please back up your claim that support for a program like Social Security is eroding, let alone becoming impossible.



Ummm...Does Europe ring a bell.  They call it austerity measures.  But I am too ignorant to realize that means slashing all those socialist programs that can no longer be afforded.  You make this too easy Goose.  Also, I am not counting on Big Brother to support me at anytime in my life.  I'm sure you will be one of those people holding the sign up that says "SAVE ME", instead of doing what you need to do to take care of yourself...hahaha..."WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!"


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> glew said:
> 
> 
> > Also DaGoose...How does it feel to be in a union that sucks the blood out of the very industry that supports it?  Perhaps abetter question is, how does it feel to "get yours" on the backs of future electricians simply because YOU wanted more and more?
> ...




Many unions have betrayed their fellow workers and become greedy.


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 16, 2010)

I was against the current HCR bill. I favour some form of Medicare Plus


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> glew said:
> 
> 
> > > Social Security?
> ...



The people get it, especially the young and the old:

Poll: Faith in Social Security system tanking - USATODAY.com



> Poll: Faith in Social
> Security system
> tanking
> 
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 16, 2010)

It doesn't matter what people think; the math (reality) matters.

Show us the numbers.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

Unions are a business. Their customers are workers. 

And just like industries in years past, they try to use the power of the government to leverage their market position and expand their customer base with as little competition as possible through legislation.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Unions are a business. Their customers are workers.
> 
> And just like industries in years past, they try to use the power of the government to leverage their market position and expand their customer base with as little competition as possible through legislation.



Sums it up pretty well, imo. Unlike businesses though, they force the employees to pay and spend those dues on political activities that benefit the union leaders, oftentimes at the expense of the workers. 

Notice that GM is 'profitable' now, while shutting down factories and laying off workers?


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Unions are a business. Their customers are workers.
> 
> And just like industries in years past, they try to use the power of the government to leverage their market position and expand their customer base with as little competition as possible through legislation.


Isn't the competition between unions and businesses the market at work?

I thought conservatives said that was a good thing?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Unions are a business. Their customers are workers.
> ...



There's not always competition between unions and businesses. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. The two's aims sometimes aren't opposed to each other every time.

From what I've seen locally, the renegotiations of contracts seems to be more of a formality. And the workers in non-union shops and union shops seem to get pretty much the same thing as far as pay and benefits. The only difference is that non-union shop employees don't have to pay anyone out of every paycheck to receive the same things. But those union reps gotta get paid somehow. And the unions need more "customers" to feed that beast.

But once a place goes union, there's no way for them to go back to non-union with the same ease as they went. Deck is stacked that way.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 16, 2010)

Annie said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > glew said:
> ...



The fix for Social Security is going to be a means test, i.e., when someone reaches the age where s/he can claim benefits, a dollar amount will be the maximum that can be claimed in benefits over and above what the lifetime contribution was. Also the maximum SS tax withheld from wages will be raised way above the current cutoff of $106,800 when, thereafter, a person pays nothing more into the system.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 16, 2010)

Annie said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Unions are a business. Their customers are workers.
> ...



How could they have continued operating in the same factories with the same employees with plummeting profits? GM needed the bailout to retool, reconfigure, redesign and come up with new management plans. It was basically a complete makeover. And a successful one.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

Annie said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > glew said:
> ...



I asked to be shown where the people don't want Social Security and this is what I get? 

Oh well....I'll work with this then. 

Take this to the bank. *Social Security will be there*. 

Any politician that ever votes to not fund it or even mentions doing away with it will be committing poltical suicide. Why? Because it is a popular program that the vast majority want and expects to be there.

Social Security is here to stay. You don't like it? Then don't be a hypocrite and file for it when you reach that age.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



How about if we don't like it, we get to keep our money and invest it at a higher rate of return than the government will ever do?

Deal?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



No deal. Because..... 

1) In order to do that you'd have to stop contributing to the current pool of retirees and will further cripple the system.

2) Given the latest rate of return over the last 8 years or so you could not ever afford to retire

3) If you ever ran out of benefits then the burden on our welfare system would be crippling as well. 

I could see people, maybe even you, that would cry "It's my money and I want it NOW" like that stupid commercial. So then you would take it and blow it then turn to welfare and make the rest of us support you.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. So they get to take money from me, leaving a system that will be defunct by the time I reach the age of benefits.

2. The rate of return is better than SS. Even in the past 8 years.

3. My choice, I'd be willing to forgo any welfare benefits.

I don't blow money.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 16, 2010)

I know someone who railed against it all their life and vowed never to take it.

That person now lives with relatives and SS is their ONLY income.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> I know someone who railed against it all their life and vowed never to take it.
> 
> That person now lives with relatives and SS is their ONLY income.



Then they're an idiot who had no idea how to prepare for the future.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



1) It will not be defunct by the time you reach the age of benefits.

2) Social Security was not created as an investment fund. It was created as a safety net insurance fund designed to pay out as long as you live. So you have no worry about "Do I have enough to carry me all the way through my old age"?

3) Easy words to say but impossible to live up to. You'll end up being a burden on somebody (if not society as a whole).


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I know someone who railed against it all their life and vowed never to take it.
> ...



No. You must be too young to know that in life "Shit Happens". Shit that is beyond your control.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. Reality disagrees with you.

2. It takes more from me than it will pay out. If it ever pays anything to me. 

3. Bullshit. Complete fabrication on your part.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Thats why you prepare for the future. Thats the very definition of avoiding shit happening.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 16, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> ahahahahahahah
> 
> whos we, you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> ...


awwww......

TM done went and learnt a new word


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



1) And the truth disagrees with you. As I've said, no politician will ever let SS die.

2) That will depend on how long you live. It's very likely you can collect more than you pay in.

3) No....hard truth my friend. I've seen it and again, it's easy to say you won't be a burden but in reality if you are old and broke you WILL be a burden.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Only a young, inexperienced person would say that. I'm betting you're under 25 years old because anybody older would know better than to make a statement like that.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke. 

2. Bullshit. Mathematical impossibility unless I live to well over 100.

3. Again, bullshit. Assuming facts not in evidence on your part. At this point, you're just making things up to reinforce your confirmation bias.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Wrong again.

But I bet you're used to that.


----------



## asterism (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



If it was not created as an investment fund it's unsustainable because any defined benefit fund has to produce a hefty return by investing in order to meet future obligations.


----------



## asterism (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



About #2, do you have statistics on the likelihood of recipients getting out more than they pay in?  If so, post them.  If not, retract your point.


----------



## asterism (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



It's one of those double-edged swords of government programs; you either need it because you're too stupid or you won life's lottery and are morally compelled (by the government) to contribute.

That's the only way single payer will work also.  Equalize everyone down to the same low standard.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



1) No it won't. Period. That's what you get for listening to Right Wing Radio.

2) If I'm wrong you'll have no problem proving it. 

3) Facts are facts. And if you're going to try and tell me that if you end up old and no money that you'll not be a burden on SOMEBODY then you're only fooling yourself.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 16, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Then you've learned very little in your life, son. I almost feel sorry for you.


----------



## asterism (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1.  The only way it won't go broke is if benefits are cut or taxes are raised.  The current structure is unsustainable.

2.  You made the claim, you prove it.

3.  Social Security should be returned to FDR's version.  Welfare if you need it.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. I don't listen to talk radio. When losing an argument, trot out the ole "Yeah, well yer just stoopid because you listen to talk radio".

2. Average life expectancy is around 75. 10 or so years of benefits versus 50 years of paying in? Are you this mathematically challenged?

3. Once again you're assuming that I'll end up with no money in my old age. This may be what is in your future because you do not know how to handle your wealth, but I assure you it's not in mine.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 16, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



I've learned not to trust people who say "well, just cause I say so".

Maybe you're more gullible. Sorry for you.


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 17, 2010)

It's gonna go broke!

No!

Yes!

Nuh-uh!

uh-huh!


does either side have any intention of presenting the numbers?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



1) You could have surprised me.

2) From Wiki...."Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age."

3) No, I'm not assuming anything. YOU said you would forego welfare in the event that your investments don't work out. I just pointed out that what you said was bullshit, that if you needed welfare you would apply for it like anyone else regardless of what you're saying now.

And it is because of point #3 that I can safely assume that you're pretty young, son. You put forth an aura of invincibility and while that's admirable it's also childish. I have seen better, harder working men than you beaten down. And anyone who's been around and seen what the market forces have done to 401k's knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## glew (Nov 17, 2010)

> And anyone who's been around and seen what the market forces have done to 401k's knows what I'm talking about.



Good thing Barry has a hardon for jacking the capital gains back up to 50%...Then 401k's will really be worth something


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Well you're obviously trusting somebody that's feeding you and millions of others a line of bullshit. Let's address YOUR gullibility, shall we?

Social Security going broke has frequently been used to argue for dismantling the system. And it's technically true, and assuming (as we shouldn't) that the federal government does nothing until the surplus that's been deliberately built is altogether depleted.

This surplus, often referred to as the trust fund, is currently about $2.5 trillion. As the New York Times reported in March, the trustees have projected that it will be down to zero in 2037. Even this doesn't mean the system will be broke. Workers and their employers will still be paying  Social Security payroll taxes. Left unchanged, they'll be enough to cover about 78 percent of benefits.

Five Big Myths About Social Security | Poverty in America | Change.org


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

glew said:


> > And anyone who's been around and seen what the market forces have done to 401k's knows what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Barry has a hardon for jacking the capital gains back up to 50%...Then 401k's will really be worth something



Not until you cash them in and generally one would be in a lower income bracket.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 17, 2010)

asterism said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



When Social Security was instituted, life expectancy was only estimated to reach 63, and beneficiaries would not be able to collect unless and until they reached 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 (varying a few points between men and women) due to huge medical and scientific advancements. Therefore, it is not unusual for a recipient to get far more out of their Social Security fund than they actually paid in.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 17, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> It's gonna go broke!
> 
> No!
> 
> ...



This site tells more about the financial condition than the Social Security home page, which is directed more toward new recipients.

Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 17, 2010)

glew said:


> > And anyone who's been around and seen what the market forces have done to 401k's knows what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing Barry has a hardon for jacking the capital gains back up to 50%...Then 401k's will really be worth something



Hey, stupid, Obama proposed a 20% increase, not 50%. In any event, it isn't up to him.

News Headlines


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> 2) From Wiki...."Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program



The gov't went to court to argue that it's not insurance- despite their assurances to the contrary

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. I bet you're easily surprised.

2. Under some certain circumstances. So if I am disabled at a very young age, and then die, and my widow and children can continue to collect. Sounds highly unlikely to me. Quite a contrast to your original claim of:



> 2) That will depend on how long you live. *It's very likely *you can collect more than you pay in.



I don't allow people to move goalposts. So...epic fail on your part there.

3.  So...another epic fail on your part? Appeal to authority logical fallacy combined with weak anecdotal evidence? Strike 3, yer out.

BTW: I've seen my 401k grow at a rate of about 8% over the course of the last 15 years. Some years were in double digits. Some years less than a percentage point. But over the long term, roughly 8%.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



So...it'll run out of money, but don't worry cause there's gonna be a solution sometime, but we just don't know what? And pray you're not in the 22% of people who will receive nothing by a methodology to be determined later?

Come back when you got some game, son. You're getting eaten alive here.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For *supposedly* being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you? 

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy? 

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



So....you got a lot of bluster and bluff, but no facts to counter anything I said? Figures.

I told you to bring your game. You didn't. You lost. I would have thought you would have learned to live with losing by now though.


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



OT, are you age obsessed or what? Are you 75 or something? Condescension has its place, but you are seriously over the top.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

Annie said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



It's the only thing he's got. Let him have it.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> It's gonna go broke!
> 
> No!
> 
> ...



Why do numbers need to be posted.

We both agree that the model is unsustainable. He just says that it will be sustained 'cause.....something......is going to make it OK.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


Radio, you're arguing with a union hack.
Save your fingers, bro....


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

hortysir said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Funny thing is, I didn't say anything anti-union though.

I just said that they are a business....which they are.


----------



## hortysir (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...


In the business of taking money from it's members to support the collective and/or the political whims of its leadership


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

hortysir said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



No, they do more than that for the workers.

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own? Or is it even things that every worker agrees to? Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Most of the time, the answers to all three questions are "no".


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > It's gonna go broke!
> ...



But you're the one running around crying that *it is lost and cannot be fixed*. I say that's bullshit. It can and will. It may take a combination of benefit adjustments and tax increases but at some point it will happen. 

And you also imply that *nothing can ever happen in your life* that could cause you to ever need SS. I say that's incredibly naive.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...





> The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own?



Only if they're at or near 100% unified in what they want so in most cases the answer would be YES. 



> Or is it even things that every worker agrees to?



Not everyone agrees 100% of the time so the answer is NO nealry all of the time.



> Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?



Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Nope.

I never said it cannot be fixed. You lose again.


----------



## asterism (Nov 17, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Valid concepts, but those aren't statistics.  All you're showing is the structural problems with how it was created.

Who would ever voluntarily contribute to a system they would most likely not benefit from?


----------



## asterism (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



7.2% annualized gain for 18 years after the crash.  I went to cash right after and haven't gotten back in yet, so I missed some gains.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



What? A worker cannot negotiate a compensation contract on their own? What are you smoking?



> > Or is it even things that every worker agrees to?
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone agrees 100% of the time so the answer is NO nealry all of the time.



Yup. And those that do not agree just have no choice. I despise not having choices. There are those that need others to think for them though. So I guess maybe thats why you're OK with it.



> > Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.



Wrong. A worker cannot opt out of part of a union negotiated term and keep their jobs in most cases.


----------



## asterism (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Arguing the fiscal "wisdom" of Social Security by pointing to the voting bloc that doesn't see what a ponzi scheme it is but are really only concerned for themselves not really supporting the point you are trying to make about the viability of Social Security as a wise place to put money.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



So when you posted, *"Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke."* you were just kidding around?

You didn't say "it might go broke", or "it could go broke". You said, "It's *going* to be broke" without a qualifier which implies it cannot be fixed.

You lose.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

asterism said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



That "voting bloc really only concerned for themselves " are your parents and grandparents that have held up their end of the bargain. They are the ones who raised you and cared for you. Now they only ask to grow old with dignity and SS has helped MILLIONS do that. And now you call them stupid and selfish. How sad.

Ponzi scheme????

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed common sense and obvious facts posted for you. I didn't realize that you had none to draw on yourself. 

It's going to go broke, _unless something is done._

Do you really think that I was saying it was going to go broke, no matter what was done? You must have. 

I won't over-estimate you again. No worries. Do you need to be spoon-fed something else as well?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



1) First of all you said "workers" in the plural sense. If they were all united I would say they could "negotiate a compensation contract". One the other hand, someone in a group that went in and did it on his or her own would be a sniveling suck-ass. 

2) They have a choice much like we all do in a democracy. They can vote out the ones they feel don't represent their best interests.

3) I don't live in a Right To Work state but this is from Wiki...."*Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."* 

Sounds to me like they can......


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



*"It's going to go broke, unless something is done"* is far removed from what you were stating. You see, that's called a "qualifier" my friend. Hell, EVERYBODY agrees with that!!! That's a "DUH". 

Now let's suppose that President Obama got on national TV and said "We are bombing the Soviet Union" and then sat back down. He would cause a panic, no? (Kinda like what that idiot Reagan did) Now if he said "We are bombing the Soviet Union if they bomb us first" that would be saying something entirely different. 

See how that works?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



1. Plural, but not collectively plural. Big difference.

2. But still do not have the option to represent their own interests.

3. You conveniently left out this part "The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which *required all new employees* to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to *fire* any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;"

The very definition of a distinction without a difference. So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



So you say that everyone agrees with that, which is what I said, and then want to argue that this wasn't implied with my original statement?

Logic and you don't get along to well, do you?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Damn you're thickheaded. 

*"So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?"*

Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees. 

.........In a Right to Work state, you can resign your union membership by simply sending your union a written letter stating that you are resigning effective immediately. You should check your union's constitution and bylaws to see if it has any provision specifying to whom a resignation must be submitted; such requirements have been upheld by the courts and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)...............

*NOW....you want to explain why a worker CAN'T opt out of a Union or not join in the first place which is the cornerstone of a RIGHT TO WORK STATE?*

http://www.nrtw.org/a/RTWresignIntro.htm


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Nope. You changed the goal posts my friend. Stop trying to deny it.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 17, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



No, you don't:



> employers are *obliged* to *fire* any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;



This is from your very own source. Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about thick-headed.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I think where you're confused is that individual states can tailor their own labor laws. Had you bothered to read further in my link you would have read....

*Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions.*

Now if you need further proof check out THIS link which will give you links to the individual state laws......

Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Texas Law......

*101.053. Contract Requiring or Prohibiting Labor Union Membership Void 

A contract is void if it requires that, to work for an employer, employees or applicants for employment: 

(1) must be or may not be members of a labor union; or 

(2) must remain or may not remain members of a labor union. (Enacted 1993.)* 

Georgia Law........

*34-6-21. Membership in or resignation from labor organization as condition of employment or continuation of employment. 

No individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to resign from or to refrain from membership in or affiliation with a labor organization. (Enacted March 27, 1947.) *

Anyhow, you get my drift. 

So....the bottom line....... *an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job*.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Yeah, not so much. But nice try 

It's always implied that a course of action will result in xxx unless a yyy happens.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



No, it's not. Where did you come up with THAT crap?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



So we have one source which you provided, saying that they can't. When thats pointed out to you, you provide another source which gives only ~20 states that allow opt outs. Coincidentally, these states do not have a majority union presence. Which means that the majority of union workers live in states that do not allow an opt out.

So you have a complete failure the first time, and not even half a pie the second time. 

But I'll concede that there are a minority of union workers who are allowed to opt out due to state laws.

Now, you care to explain how that minority of union workers somehow means that union workers as a whole, across the nation, can opt out? Oh....they can't.

So the point still stands, with some minority exceptions. Congrats, you scored a field goal while I've been running touchdowns.


----------



## asterism (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Our parents and grandparents have nothing to fear, I don't want to take away their benefits and never have advocated anything even approaching that.  BTW, my parents don't need government to grow old with dignity (and I thank them for raising and caring for me in such a way to teach me that).  I want my generation to be the one that stops this unsustainable program.

It's unsustainable according to their own report, which states:

"Based on the Trustees' best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2041."

That was in 2007.  2007 Trustees Report:

Their latest report isn't any better:

"Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period."

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Logic.

Learn to use it sometime. 

If you're driving and heading for a tree, you will hit it UNLESS a course correction is made.


----------



## asterism (Nov 18, 2010)

Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly.  I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability  with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

asterism said:


> Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly.  I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability  with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.



I don't know who you're referring to but the overwhelming majority of Americans like and want to keep the current form of Social Security. 

*Here are some of the major findings:

68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.

Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.

Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67*.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08...-cuts-prefers-progressive-economic-solutions/

This is why I argue that SS will not be eliminated even though RadiomanATL thinks it will be. He was wrong about Right To Work laws and he's wrong that SS will be "gone".


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Or in your case....move the tree (or goal posts) to make your point.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Like I said, logic and you don't get along real well, do y'all?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Not when someone considers it logical to make one point and then, when getting beat up too bad, changes their position completely while trying to maintain that they didn't. 

That takes some dancing, son.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Repeating the same claim doesn't make it true.

Just so ya know 

You may now continue obfuscating and being devoid of logic.


----------



## MaggieMae (Nov 18, 2010)

asterism said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The statistics are there, but Congress never wants to do anything about them. They continue to pass along the problem to the next Congress. It's long been recognized that the biggest problem is that people are living longer. 

I'm sure the company I've had my life insurance with for 30 years HATES the fact that I've outlived the benefit initially offered at an extremely low premium. Statistics show I probaby should have died several years ago. Now when I do die, the payout will be at face value but the low premiums paid over the years still haven't added up to that amount.


----------



## asterism (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly.  I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability  with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.
> ...




Time will tell, but good to see you can't refute the point about it being fiscally unsustainable.


----------



## asterism (Nov 18, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I doubt the insurance company hates your situation.  If anything, you are but a factor in their own actuarial procedures.  Their business model is built on being able to adjust while still paying out.  However, Social Security is not an insurance program and certainly isn't run like one.

It's run like a typical government program where predictable cost overruns are ignored and then bureaucrats form alliances with politicians to arbitrarily force every worker to pay more.  The Social Security Tax is the most regressive of all taxes imposed by the federal government.  And the statistics to support that payers into the system will most likely receive more in benefits do not exist.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Supporters of the current Social Security model seem to have gotten quiet suddenly.  I wonder if posting the actual words of their own reports clearly demonstrating unsustainability  with links to the "actual numbers" had anything to do with that.
> ...



Actually, I was right on both. Your dancing, obfuscating and goalpost moving was a bit transparent.

SS will be gone unless something changes.
Union members, for the most part, do not have the option to opt out of a union and still retain their job.

You have yet to refute either point. You've just been throwing bullshit up against the wall to see what sticks.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It's hard to make something "stick" against a continously moving target. You've changed your position on both SS and Unions when you realized that you were wrong. But then you turned around and say that's what you "meant" all along!!!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Nice try.

My position has been the same all along.

So the question is, are you a liar, or just stupid?


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

asterism said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Whether or not it is "fiscally unsustainable" has never been the question. I only made the point that yes, it will be fixed. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans want it fixed and to allow it to go bankrupt and stop paying out benefits would be the worst nightmare imaginable for the politicians and Washington. 

Of course, RadiomanATL says it's going bankrupt and he'll never see a dollar from it so I guess we should all just stop trying to do what it takes to fix it.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

Hey!

Went for both!

Good jerb


----------



## Sheldon (Nov 18, 2010)

glew said:


> Ummm...Does Europe ring a bell.  They call it austerity measures.  But I am too ignorant to realize that means slashing all those socialist programs that can no longer be afforded.




That's not a criticism of socialism any more than a private company reducing costs during a recession is a criticism of free enterprise. At least European--especially German--politicians have the fortitude to make these tough cuts, putting solvency and stability ahead of re-election. Everyone is just making it up as they go, and politicians with spines will make the necessary adjustments along the way. Unfortunately, this country is in short supply of politicians with spines right now.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



It's your story, so I guess you can tell it anyway you want.  Besides, you can always change it.


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

Sheldon said:


> glew said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm...Does Europe ring a bell.  They call it austerity measures.  But I am too ignorant to realize that means slashing all those socialist programs that can no longer be afforded.
> ...



My point all along.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

DaGoose said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Like I said, you chose both options. Good jerb


----------



## DaGoose (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I'm just glad you finally saw the errors of your ways on SS and Unions.


----------



## ibsys2562 (Dec 3, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> ahahahahahahah
> 
> whos we, you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> ...



Also DaGoose...How does it feel to be in a union that sucks the blood out of the very industry that supports it? Perhaps abetter question is, how does it feel to "get yours" on the backs of future electricians simply because YOU wanted more and more?


----------



## rdean (Dec 3, 2010)

glew said:


> Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?



Actually, it makes more sense if you ask, "What are some of the good things liberals and progressives have done in the last 100 years?

The reason is because of "white flight", there has been dramatic changes in the two parties.  A particular party that was once more left, became more right.

And look at what the last 100 years have led to?  One party that is 90% white and mostly Christian.  And the other party of "everyone else".  With such an extreme change, it only makes sense that one party would be "extreme".  And the Republican Party has become very extreme.  

But considering that in the average red state, for every dollar they pay in federal taxes, they get back $1.20 and only six percent of scientist are Republican, it's obvious that almost every contributions of any real value have come from liberals.  These days, that means "Democrats".

Building nuclear power plants?  Designing an electric car? Being a brain surgeon?  For right wingers to do any of these things, they would have to believe in "science".  How likely is that?

The belief that people were "shimmered" fully formed out of "dirt" can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Revere (Dec 3, 2010)

If Blue States want to give everything to the Federal government and get nothing in return, nobody should stand in the way of that idiocy.


----------



## rdean (Dec 4, 2010)

Revere said:


> If Blue States want to give everything to the Federal government and get nothing in return, nobody should stand in the way of that idiocy.



They can't help it.  It's not their fault.  Republicans can suck money out of a piece of cheese.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 4, 2010)

glew said:


> Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?



Do you know any history at all?  If you'd like to change your lack of knowledge may I suggest: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Glory-Dream-Narrative-History-1932-1972/dp/0553345893/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 (9780553345896): William Manchester: Books[/ame]  An unbiased narrative history, long but worth the knowledge you may gain. 


Has anyone ever seen a thread that consisted of conservative accomplishments? There are none. Why? Because when all you do is oppose change there isn't a heck of a lot one can accomplish.

Liberals today are supposedly not like liberals in the 17th and 18th century, and that is true as times change, but they are still liberals because they still believe in a world in which freedom, fairness, and justice for all is possible.

So I give back to you from Reagan to Bush Jr conservative accomplishments: debt, war, increased poverty, stagnant wages, a proliferation of hostile nations, no energy policy, environmental spoilage, outsourcing of our jobs and our knowledge, and almost total economic collapse, and I ask again, what aside from criticizing liberals can they point to? Nada. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla


Republican accomplishments since Reagan 

Voodoo economics
Invaded Granada 
Invaded Panama
Lowered taxes for wealthy, raised taxes, raised taxes, raised taxes
Removed worker rights legislation, fired workers
Made government the bad guy
Banking deregulation 
Bailed out S&L after real estate bubble burst
Brought down Russia by giving speeches and spending money
Spent gazillions on star wars which failed first second and last time tested.
Presented great ad campaign Contract for America, nothing changed 
Gave speeches and spent money, Axis of evil, didn't work this time
Failed to read, understand, or act on information about some guy and an attack
Created Homeland security and read your email
Stacked the SCOTUS with fascists who think corporations are really people
Kept Americans safe after Beirut and after 911 after
Watched the destruction of New Orleans 
Gave medals to complete failures
Figured since they couldn't get Bin Laden they'd get Saddam
Showed 8 by 10 glossies of wmds in Iraq at UN
Invaded Iraq
Uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq daily
Decided democracy was the reason for Iraq invasion
Reduced taxes for wealthy
Increased poverty
Trickle-down economics that works better up
Demonized and pilloried Hillary Clinton
Introduced the world to a great intellectual Sarah Palin 
Bailed out Banks again after real estate bubble burst 
Failed so utterly the seemingly impossible happened in 2008
Asked Michael Steele to lead them 
Secretly led by Rush Limbaugh and Fox
Made corporations people
Demonized and pilloried Nancy Pelosi
Helped make journalism at Fox pure propaganda
Claimed they were not witches
Did nothing but complain, repeat nothing, nothing
Didn't know the Constitution separated church and state 
Claim they have changed 
Really claimed they have changed by doing another contract on America
And so it goes....


----------



## rdean (Dec 4, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> glew said:
> 
> 
> > Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?
> ...



That's what happens when you have a party that's 90% white who have chased out their intellectuals and educated.  What you end up with is the current Republican party.


----------



## rikules (Dec 4, 2010)

glew said:


> Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?



"What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?"


public works projects in the 1930's helped millions of people survive the depression

democrats have been quite successful (over the past 30 years) in helping women, blacks, gays achieve greater equality in society

about 15 years ago shannon faulkner became the first female to enter the citadel;...

republicans (conservatives) all over the country made her life a living hell (including death threats)
democrats and liberals supported her...

and today....women are in all of the military institutions and serving in military capacities and NOBODY blinks an eye!

thanks to democrats and liberals

today...gays are out and about everywhere...
on tv, in business, in politics

and nobody cares....

thanks to liberals and democrats


----------



## DaGoose (Dec 8, 2010)

rdean said:


> That's what happens when you have a party that's 90% white who have chased out their intellectuals and educated.  What you end up with is the current Republican party.



The new face of the GOP.......................


----------



## regent (Feb 13, 2016)

glew said:


> Do today's democrats know their own history?  Do they know that our current president is running the same political playbook as Woodrow Wilson and FDR?  I am going to throw some bait out there and ask...What are some of the good things Dems have done in the last 100 years?  Do they balance out the bad things?


 Some of the good things Republicans have done is help, and extend, Democratic programs, particularly FDR's New Deal programs.  As for knowing their history, most historians are accused of being liberal and therefore communists because they rate FDR so high.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 14, 2016)

Democrats aren't even aware of basic history. All they know is inane cliches that pass for historic analysis and skewed junk furnished by the liberal media or left wing blog sites that never saw a democrat they didn't like. Lefties whine about the Iraq war but they aren't aware that Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an (illegal?) executive order and bungled the mission so badly in a three year quagmire that we lost about 50,000 Troops and ended up where we started. The area is still unstable sixty years later. The drooling sycophantic liberal media thanked Truman with a tickertape parade but Americans knew better. Truman didn't have enough support in his own party to run for a 2nd full term and dropped out of politics.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 14, 2016)

Unlike Whitehall, Democrats know about whitespace and punctuation.


----------

