IDK, I don't know enough about SS.

Do you want to live in a society where our poor is better off than Haiti's poor or not?

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/14/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
You are wrong, Tang. Social Security is a terrible thing. If people reinvested the money that is withheld for SS in a mutual fund or something similar, the returns would be much greater than what they get back from SS.

What is wrong with cutting social welfare by 30%? As I've said, if you are healthy, you should not be receiving aid from the government.

Until big banks and too big to fail financial institutes lead us off a fiscal cliff, wiping out all of your savings in one corrupt fell swoop. Why would you trust a bank with your future? You can't even trust them to not open fake accounts in your name. Or to not bet AGAINST people that they give loans to.

Of course if we further deregulate them, everything will be just fine I'm sure. The current admin even just rolled back a rule saying investment companies needed to have their customers best interest in mind when making investments.

I would be for privitization if banks had to follow super strict rules and get regulated up the wazoo on these kind of investments.

You do realize that TARP was voluntary and not necessary, right? It was the investment banks that led to the recession not the commercial banks.

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

#1) You idiot. By moving up the retirement age you don't have to pay SS until then. Duh.
#3) Do you think the Fed Gov't employees health insurance and state employees for that matter is paid for by the tooth fairy?
#7) What airplane and what administration was that under? Look up MITRE Corp. and then talk. Man you are so dumb I have to stop conversing with you yet again. People who work for MITRE are in the PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! With security clearance same for Lockheed and numerous other companies. Your dumbassery is off the charts.

I am talking over a 10-year period. Are we discussing one month? One year? Do we not have a 10 year plan to significantly reduce the debt? We spend about $800bn per year on entitlements. If we cut that by 30% and do so for 10 years...it equates to $2.4Tn. Couple that with a stronger economy and you can start putting a dent into the debt.

Dummy.

1) SS is good, IMO. 62 is old enough. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.

3) So the minimal gains by doing this anyway is distributed to a minimal amount of people. We probably save less than a million dollars doing this.

7) http://theweek.com/articles/601080/americas-everything-fighter-jet-total-disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/index.html

Why does MITRE have to work with defense? This is my point! Move the defense spending elsewhere and fund MITRE separately!

Oh, I wouldn't cut it by 30%...

#1) You know zippo about finance so your opinion is irrelevant.
#3) Incorrect. Lobbying costs this country billions. I am not going to educate you as to why. Google it.
#7) Started in the early 90s. Some projects go poorly. I think DJT is trying to correct that. See what he did with the Air Force One negotiation?

Because nano is a huge next phase for the military. Did you just seriously ask this question? MITRE employs some of the brightest minds in the world. Why not use them to help defend our country? Your stupidity is out of control. No of course not. You want to cut the military budget instead. If you want to reduce the debt you have to make tough decisions.

Crawl back in your hole. I am not responding to your dumbassery anymore.

The stock market has always gained over long periods of time.

3) I did Google it, and found nada.

7) 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS! TRILLION! Why do we need this tech? It didn't even work! What a waste!

OK, so what you are saying is to have MITRE develop tech for the military that could help civilian life. I am saying have MITRE develop tech for civilian life that could help the military. You proved my point again. We don't need to spend as much as we do on military. Be more like China and Russia. Cut funds but SPEND THEM WISELY. We spend too frivolously. Cut spending and force people to think before they spend, like any other business.

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 12:58:00 PM (view original):
IDK, I don't know enough about SS.

Do you want to live in a society where our poor is better off than Haiti's poor or not?

OMG One more.

We have clean water, clean sanitation, healthcare cannot be denied if you are poor, education and free lunches. Not exactly Haiti. Please go away and never come back.

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 2:06:00 PM (view original):
3) I did Google it, and found nada.

7) 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS! TRILLION! Why do we need this tech? It didn't even work! What a waste!

OK, so what you are saying is to have MITRE develop tech for the military that could help civilian life. I am saying have MITRE develop tech for civilian life that could help the military. You proved my point again. We don't need to spend as much as we do on military. Be more like China and Russia. Cut funds but SPEND THEM WISELY. We spend too frivolously. Cut spending and force people to think before they spend, like any other business.

You idiot. Who will pay MITRE to develop this tech? Which civilians?

So you think Lobbyists spent $3.3Bn last year for fun? Idiot.

$1.5Trn over what 30 years? Some projects go bad. You are dumb.

OMG!!!! You really have no common sense do you?

LMAO at your expense

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 12:58:00 PM (view original):
IDK, I don't know enough about SS.

Do you want to live in a society where our poor is better off than Haiti's poor or not?

OMG One more.

We have clean water, clean sanitation, healthcare cannot be denied if you are poor, education and free lunches. Not exactly Haiti. Please go away and never come back.

You want to take most of those things away. SAD. (JOKE)

Welfare is super important for food and general well-being. Lots of those things actively cost money.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 2:06:00 PM (view original):
3) I did Google it, and found nada.

7) 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS! TRILLION! Why do we need this tech? It didn't even work! What a waste!

OK, so what you are saying is to have MITRE develop tech for the military that could help civilian life. I am saying have MITRE develop tech for civilian life that could help the military. You proved my point again. We don't need to spend as much as we do on military. Be more like China and Russia. Cut funds but SPEND THEM WISELY. We spend too frivolously. Cut spending and force people to think before they spend, like any other business.

You idiot. Who will pay MITRE to develop this tech? Which civilians?

So you think Lobbyists spent $3.3Bn last year for fun? Idiot.

$1.5Trn over what 30 years? Some projects go bad. You are dumb.

OMG!!!! You really have no common sense do you?

LMAO at your expense

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Normal people. Consumers. Duh.

Yeah but I still don't see how this affects the debt.

1.5Trn overall. This is total hypocrisy. You don't react this way to anything else. You should be outraged, like me.

What? It is psychology. The more money you have, the less smartly you spend it. If we have a ton of excess money, we splurge.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

#1) You idiot. By moving up the retirement age you don't have to pay SS until then. Duh.
#3) Do you think the Fed Gov't employees health insurance and state employees for that matter is paid for by the tooth fairy?
#7) What airplane and what administration was that under? Look up MITRE Corp. and then talk. Man you are so dumb I have to stop conversing with you yet again. People who work for MITRE are in the PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! With security clearance same for Lockheed and numerous other companies. Your dumbassery is off the charts.

I am talking over a 10-year period. Are we discussing one month? One year? Do we not have a 10 year plan to significantly reduce the debt? We spend about $800bn per year on entitlements. If we cut that by 30% and do so for 10 years...it equates to $2.4Tn. Couple that with a stronger economy and you can start putting a dent into the debt.

Dummy.

1) SS is good, IMO. 62 is old enough. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.

3) So the minimal gains by doing this anyway is distributed to a minimal amount of people. We probably save less than a million dollars doing this.

7) http://theweek.com/articles/601080/americas-everything-fighter-jet-total-disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/index.html

Why does MITRE have to work with defense? This is my point! Move the defense spending elsewhere and fund MITRE separately!

Oh, I wouldn't cut it by 30%...

#1) You know zippo about finance so your opinion is irrelevant.
#3) Incorrect. Lobbying costs this country billions. I am not going to educate you as to why. Google it.
#7) Started in the early 90s. Some projects go poorly. I think DJT is trying to correct that. See what he did with the Air Force One negotiation?

Because nano is a huge next phase for the military. Did you just seriously ask this question? MITRE employs some of the brightest minds in the world. Why not use them to help defend our country? Your stupidity is out of control. No of course not. You want to cut the military budget instead. If you want to reduce the debt you have to make tough decisions.

Crawl back in your hole. I am not responding to your dumbassery anymore.

Boris.

#1. SS was established to insure a decent retirement for the American poor/working class. Had the Gov't NOT borrowed from it, it would be sound.
To allow private citizens (many idiots and morons financially) to privately invest would result in MANY folks having no retirement and then costing society at large when they age.
#3. I HATE lobbying, too, BUT it's constitutional protected. "..the people's right to redress..." which is specifically mentioned and protected.
The problem arises when money becomes a factor in our Rep.'s votes instead of just logic and truth. In other words the "swamping" effect of having a vote and allowing money to influence your vote!

Now, we've elected the snakiest of the swampy. What do you expect to get out of this admin. if it ISN'T corruption at the highest level.
Simple logic.

#1) I didn't say privatize, I just said people should retire later. When it was established the average life span was much shorter than it is now. Keep the same but allow people to work longer.

#3) Agreed

I expect the media to at least report fairly. Look at Jerusalem right now. 99% of the new is about the poor Palestinians and evil Israel.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

#1) You idiot. By moving up the retirement age you don't have to pay SS until then. Duh.
#3) Do you think the Fed Gov't employees health insurance and state employees for that matter is paid for by the tooth fairy?
#7) What airplane and what administration was that under? Look up MITRE Corp. and then talk. Man you are so dumb I have to stop conversing with you yet again. People who work for MITRE are in the PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! With security clearance same for Lockheed and numerous other companies. Your dumbassery is off the charts.

I am talking over a 10-year period. Are we discussing one month? One year? Do we not have a 10 year plan to significantly reduce the debt? We spend about $800bn per year on entitlements. If we cut that by 30% and do so for 10 years...it equates to $2.4Tn. Couple that with a stronger economy and you can start putting a dent into the debt.

Dummy.

1) SS is good, IMO. 62 is old enough. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.

3) So the minimal gains by doing this anyway is distributed to a minimal amount of people. We probably save less than a million dollars doing this.

7) http://theweek.com/articles/601080/americas-everything-fighter-jet-total-disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/index.html

Why does MITRE have to work with defense? This is my point! Move the defense spending elsewhere and fund MITRE separately!

Oh, I wouldn't cut it by 30%...

#1) You know zippo about finance so your opinion is irrelevant.
#3) Incorrect. Lobbying costs this country billions. I am not going to educate you as to why. Google it.
#7) Started in the early 90s. Some projects go poorly. I think DJT is trying to correct that. See what he did with the Air Force One negotiation?

Because nano is a huge next phase for the military. Did you just seriously ask this question? MITRE employs some of the brightest minds in the world. Why not use them to help defend our country? Your stupidity is out of control. No of course not. You want to cut the military budget instead. If you want to reduce the debt you have to make tough decisions.

Crawl back in your hole. I am not responding to your dumbassery anymore.

hell yeah, he talked the refrigerators on AF1 all the way down to 24 million bucks. lol

Hey those are damn good fridges!!

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 2:38:00 PM (view original):
#1) I didn't say privatize, I just said people should retire later. When it was established the average life span was much shorter than it is now. Keep the same but allow people to work longer.

#3) Agreed

I expect the media to at least report fairly. Look at Jerusalem right now. 99% of the new is about the poor Palestinians and evil Israel.

Aren't we allowed NOW to keep working and not retire? You are sure correct about the average life span and speaking just for this one old dog I don't feel close to dead yet..........besides I subscribe to the Billy Joe Shaver logic that "you're as young as the woman you feel"........