Celebrating Failure???

[PoliticalChic]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

"That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do. The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'"
PoliticalChic (PC)

Evidence is missing. Unless PC is suggesting a University Degree is such training. Which would give those of us who have such a degree more evidence of her lack of higher education (as if we needed more).

Anyone who knows what a blue book is, and what is required in answering an essay question understands the pages would be blank were it not for date and facts plus the life and vicarious experiences called upon to fill the pages.

Of course PC provides an essay to us, mostly dribs and drabs of the work of obscure iconoclasts seeking to make a name for themselves, and few bucks by rewriting history. Yet we have no idea of her life experiences, though some of us have the life experiences to make some educated guesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0


Three rules for staying out of poverty

A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

How a Working-Class Couple Amassed a Priceless Art Collection

Great American Art Collector Herbert Vogel Dies

Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Links, sources, and documentation.
In your face, sucker.

 

[initforme]

I didn't vote in the last election because the choices were only uber rich wealthy candidates who cannot relate to the working class yet they say they know what we need.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you don't want to get rid of it explain the alternative. If you put it in the hands of private investors that raised a red flag. They are out to make a profit at who's expense? The way most Americans see it is working class people are going to get screwed no matter what route is given. That is preety much fact which cannot be disputed. We are a semi plutocracy and we call ourselves exceptional. That is pure hogwash.

Now you are retreating from your claim that the thread is about terminating social security?

Great.


Where is your apology?

 

[BlueGin]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

I can provide dozens....actually dozens....of failures of Obama....and yet you provide proof that you voted for this political miscarriage.

I suppose I should pay you a fee for verifying the title of this thread: "Celebrating Failure."


My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


Dare you to demand to see 'em.

What you "provide" is dribble from the right wing circle jerk propaganda machine.

Success to you means a very few rich people and everyone else miserable and struggling.

That's basically the right wing/religious sect meme on how things should be.

It's ridiculous and dangerous.

Must be why libs are okay with stealing from the middle class and senior citizens.

Truth is not your friend; of course neither is anyone else...

I'm sorry...which of you and your fellow loon freak shows would anyone care to be "friends" with again?

 

[initforme]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

 

[initforme]

We are a semi plutocracy. Its OK to admit it. Exceptional we are not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems clear that the local Liberals have been unable to confront, much less rebut any of the posts in this thread.

So....let's take on a professional Liberal....Eduardo Porter, and his NYTimes article....


5. A recent City-Journal article picks up on the theme " “You [Republicans or conservatives] don’t care about the poor”....and then simply eviscerates it.

" ....Eduardo Porter made a remarkably thin case in his most recent New York Times column, “The Republican Party’s Strategy to Ignore Poverty.”


[Here is an example of a successful Republican effort to fight poverty:]

Porter centers his argument on the landmark (and bipartisan) welfare reform of 1996, which converted the traditional federal program of cash welfare to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a block grant of funds for states capped at about $16.5 billion. Because that cap was not indexed to inflation, and because states were given flexibility in the use of funds, welfare rolls have declined significantly.

“Welfare was essentially made irrelevant to the lives of the poor,” writes Porter, proof that “the block grant strategy . . . allows the assistance to wither while poverty survives.”


Except that “welfare,” in the form of the cash payments block-granted in 1996, is a fraction of total government assistance to the poor. Porter knows this. Indeed, he once explained in his column that “welfare reform in the mid-1990s, to a large extent, replaced cash payments with food stamps and an expanded earned-income tax credit [EITC].


a. [Although] TANF funding declined in real terms from $23 billion in 1996 to $16.5 billion in 2014 (in constant2014 dollars),food-stamp spending doubled from $37 billion to $74 billion during that time, and the EITC rose from$43 billion to $65 billion. In other words, every dollar of TANF reductions has been met with almost ten dollars of increases in the other support."
Can We Discuss Poverty Like Grown-Ups? by Oren Cass, City Journal October 28, 2015




Again?

TANF down $6.5 billion...but other forms of welfare up [37+22= 59] $59 billion!

Up by a factor of ten!!!!



And...earned-income tax credit [EITC] was a Republican creation.



"Since [LBJ's War on Poverty], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
The War on Poverty After 50 Years



QED....Liberal social programs have been a celebration of failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

That's a lie.

You have no idea what they bought or how they lived.

And your lack of class is the explanation of the lack of apology.

 

[candycorn]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

I can provide dozens....actually dozens....of failures of Obama....and yet you provide proof that you voted for this political miscarriage.

I suppose I should pay you a fee for verifying the title of this thread: "Celebrating Failure."


My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


Dare you to demand to see 'em.

What you "provide" is dribble from the right wing circle jerk propaganda machine.

Success to you means a very few rich people and everyone else miserable and struggling.

That's basically the right wing/religious sect meme on how things should be.

It's ridiculous and dangerous.

Must be why libs are okay with stealing from the middle class and senior citizens.

Truth is not your friend; of course neither is anyone else...

I'm sorry...which of you and your fellow loon freak shows would anyone care to be "friends" with again?

Compared to you? Name any of them....


theres your sign.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We are a semi plutocracy. Its OK to admit it. Exceptional we are not.

Your post about not being exceptional is certainly true for you.

 

[candycorn]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

Actually Jumbo lied (through her link) about assistant managers making anywhere near that much per year. Also the 401k is based on several things. #1 the stock market and if you're vested in one company's stock (as I'm pretty sure WMT's plan indicates for the maximum match) your fortunes rise or fall pretty drastically. WMT was at 90+ per share a few weeks back. Now it's around 56. You can sell your holdings but the maximum match is no longer made; regardless, setting your 40 year retirement clock based on one company's rise is about as nutty as you can get; a diversified mix is what most investment professionals recommend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

Actually Jumbo lied (through her link) about assistant managers making anywhere near that much per year. Also the 401k is based on several things. #1 the stock market and if you're vested in one company's stock (as I'm pretty sure WMT's plan indicates for the maximum match) your fortunes rise or fall pretty drastically. WMT was at 90+ per share a few weeks back. Now it's around 56. You can sell your holdings but the maximum match is no longer made; regardless, setting your 40 year retirement clock based on one company's rise is about as nutty as you can get; a diversified mix is what most investment professionals recommend.

1. In your post you claimed "few" make that much....so you verified it.
Post #81..."Few (if any) Wal Mart managers make 58,000 per year."



2. 'Jumbo'???
How about your pic, Ug?
Or that really atrocious one you had as your earlier avi?
Happy to post mine once you put up yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

The vote was made in good faith predicated on lies from the Bush Administration; had Congress known the truth it would have never authorized the unwarranted, illegal invasion of Iraq, hence the need for the Bush Administration to lie to 'justify' the invasion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Celebrating Failure???"

This thread is a celebration of failure, as it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

 

[candycorn]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

Actually Jumbo lied (through her link) about assistant managers making anywhere near that much per year. Also the 401k is based on several things. #1 the stock market and if you're vested in one company's stock (as I'm pretty sure WMT's plan indicates for the maximum match) your fortunes rise or fall pretty drastically. WMT was at 90+ per share a few weeks back. Now it's around 56. You can sell your holdings but the maximum match is no longer made; regardless, setting your 40 year retirement clock based on one company's rise is about as nutty as you can get; a diversified mix is what most investment professionals recommend.

1. In your post you claimed "few" make that much....so you verified it.
Post #81..."Few (if any) Wal Mart managers make 58,000 per year."



2. 'Jumbo'???
How about your pic, Ug?
Or that really atrocious one you had as your earlier avi?
Happy to post mine once you put up yours.

I allow for overtime which can shift the paradigm. No source anyone has trotted out suggests that $58,000 is the salary of an assistant manager at Wal Mart. The link you keep bringing up tubby doesn't source that stat either by the way.

 

[candycorn]

"Celebrating Failure???"

This thread is a celebration of failure, as it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

Well, her intent was to paint Obama as a failure. But we took $10K in Wal Mart stock and compared the performance during the last two Presidencies. Obama's performance in the stock market was more than double Bush's stock market performance.

So yes, by celebrating Bush, Jumbo is celebrating failure.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Celebrating Failure???"

This thread is a celebration of failure, as it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

Well, her intent was to paint Obama as a failure. But we took $10K in Wal Mart stock and compared the performance during the last two Presidencies. Obama's performance in the stock market was more than double Bush's stock market performance.

So yes, by celebrating Bush, Jumbo is celebrating failure.

It's painfully obvious you're clueless as to why the stock market is up

 

[candycorn]

No apology needed. 2 hard working Walmart workers can retire. Yup as long as they do nothing but work and don't buy a house or car or do anything fun. Vacation out of the question. A joke.

Actually Jumbo lied (through her link) about assistant managers making anywhere near that much per year. Also the 401k is based on several things. #1 the stock market and if you're vested in one company's stock (as I'm pretty sure WMT's plan indicates for the maximum match) your fortunes rise or fall pretty drastically. WMT was at 90+ per share a few weeks back. Now it's around 56. You can sell your holdings but the maximum match is no longer made; regardless, setting your 40 year retirement clock based on one company's rise is about as nutty as you can get; a diversified mix is what most investment professionals recommend.

1. In your post you claimed "few" make that much....so you verified it.
Post #81..."Few (if any) Wal Mart managers make 58,000 per year."



2. 'Jumbo'???
How about your pic, Ug?
Or that really atrocious one you had as your earlier avi?
Happy to post mine once you put up yours.

Yes...and for the fantasy that Wal Mart employees will retire happily everafter....all the "few" have to do is marry one another and work a shitload of overtime (as Jumbo busily looks for some stat that saves her stupid assed argument). I'm going to lunch. Ta Ta failure.

 

[candycorn]

"Celebrating Failure???"

This thread is a celebration of failure, as it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

Well, her intent was to paint Obama as a failure. But we took $10K in Wal Mart stock and compared the performance during the last two Presidencies. Obama's performance in the stock market was more than double Bush's stock market performance.

So yes, by celebrating Bush, Jumbo is celebrating failure.

It's painfully obvious you're clueless as to why the stock market is up

332-206...Painfully obvious (to you).

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Celebrating Failure???"

This thread is a celebration of failure, as it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

Well, her intent was to paint Obama as a failure. But we took $10K in Wal Mart stock and compared the performance during the last two Presidencies. Obama's performance in the stock market was more than double Bush's stock market performance.

So yes, by celebrating Bush, Jumbo is celebrating failure.

It's painfully obvious you're clueless as to why the stock market is up

332-206...Painfully obvious (to you).

LOL You'r clueless, it's obvious. A rank amateur when it comes to the markets...understand this, I know from just reading your inane comments on it