Re: OT: Official 'Why Zarqawi and why now?' thread


"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pq-dnZxd0Z3V5BTZRVn_vQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"John A. Fish"

<snip SS and public school stuff>

One does not discuss anything with William, John. One makes comments and
ubertroll goes nuts.

Uhh, no. I write analytical line by line rebuttals which totally demolish
my opponent's arguments.

The best thing to do is simply ignore him.

But you don't ignore me. You constantly engage in your cluck clucking
bull*** with your cronies, spewing forth what you imagine is a droll
commentary on me and a rebuttal of my arguments.

It is the only thing that drives him up the wall.

LOL. On the contrary, I love it that you refuse to reply to me directly.
Why? We all know that it is because you are scared to death of me because I
have exposed so many of your lies and logical errors.

See, when you refuse to reply to me, I get to rip your posts to shreds, and
I don't have to put up with your endless feeble attempts at rebuttal, which
invariably consist of lies, logical errors, and trash talk.

Unless someone replies to my reply to you, you have no chance to even
attempt a rebuttal. Do you have any idea how silly you look waiting for
someone like Fish to reply to me, then responding to the third party and
talking about me in the third person to this third party? Hilarious,
indeed. Face it Pickle. You have exactly zero credibility on this
newsgroup.

Public schools are not underfunded.

Huh? What a ridiculous statement. They are obviously underfunded relative
to the demands placed on public schools by society.

They are one more example of government (monopoly)

Could you possibly be more clueless? The government does not have a
monopoly on education.

doing something that it should not be doing.

According to whom?

One more example of why a committee is not the best method of allocation
of resources.

One more example of your fuzzy headed thinking resulting in statements which
do not say anything meaningful about reality.

One more example of "we're the government and we know what is best for you
and we are here to help you."

Uhh, no. One more example of the government providing what the overwhelming
majority of people in this country think is a necessary and desirable
function of government -- universal free education.

There is a difference between funding and administering education.

Who said there wasn't? Trying for the all time RGP strawman championship?

There is no "lock box" and social security is a transfer scheme that will
fail without significant tax increases or significant reduction in
benefits.

More 100% bull*** and nonsense which cannot be substantiated with any
facts, evidence, or logical argument whatsoever. Forty years ago, people
were telling me that social security would not be there for me when I
retired. Well, I am 61, and it's still there. In 1978, when he was running
for Congress, George Bush stated that the social security system would fail
in ten years unless it was privatized. He was wrong. All the doomsayers who
have said for 70 years that social security could not possibly work and
would fail have been proven wrong, and you are wrong too, Pickle. Please
point out which of the following statements is not 100% factual --

There is enough money in the SS Trust Fund, combined with FICA tax revenues,
to pay all promised SS benefits for the next 40 years.

Even if there are no changes at all to promised benefits and FICA tax rates
in the next 40 years, when the Trust Fund is exhausted, FICA taxes alone
will pay for 80% of promised benefits, which are much higher, in real terms
than the benefits received by current retirees.

Twenty years ago, Reagan and the Democrats tweaked the FICA tax rates and
promised benefits to make the system solvent for 60 years. Obviously,
anytime in the next 40 years, we can perform similar tweaks and get many
more decades of solvency.

There is no social security crisis. Social security is not going to
collapse or go broke. This is all alarmist bull*** from people like you
who hate social security and want to destroy it. Why? Because it is an
indisputably clear example of a government program which works, and which
performs its mandated functions in a very cost efficient manner.

Medicare and Medicaid, combined with social security,

You can leave social security out of this, because it represents no future
threat to the economy or the fiscal health of the federal government.

may be sufficient to stagnate and eventually destroy the economy if not
corrected.

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid do represent huge problems. If present trends
continue, the federal government is going to have tens of trillions of
dollars of unfunded obligations to pay promised benefits. But wait, why is
that? Because the current health system is broken, extremely inefficient,
extremely expensive, and health care costs are spiralling out of control.

So why doesn't the Bush Crime Family want to do anything about the impending
Medicare and Medicaid crisis, while raising hell about a non-existent social
security crisis?

Simple. The simple obvious solution to our health care crisis is to do what
every other industrialized nation in the world has done -- adopt some form
of universal single payer health care.

I have made long detailed posts about why universal single payer health care
would immediately save literally hundreds of billions of dollars in
unnecessary administrative expenses, while providing a higher quality of
health care for everyone, including the 45 million who are currently
uninsured.

More importantly, such a system would give the federal government power to
get health care costs under control, and match up the amount of money
society is willing to spend on health care with the level of services
expected by the public.

These long detailed posts on universal single payer health care stand
unrebutted by Pickle, Mo Ron Charles, or any other conservative poster.
Pickle and Mo Ron know that everything in these posts is factual and
logical.

(The Great Depression occurred when there was insignificant government
debt or entitlement programs. Private investment took the hit.)

Apparently you think this means something. I have no idea what the *** you
are talking about.

It is better to pay your taxes now on your future retirement accounts
(think Roth) than wait to pay taxes on them when you are old. The health
care system MUST be addressed. A national health care system would make
it worse.

Of course it wouldn't.

There is no example of government run health care being a success in the
long run.

Of course there are. Canada, France and many other countries are providing
a higher quality of care for all its citizens at half the per capita cost.

There is no example of any non-mandatory government system being the most
efficient and effective allocation of resources.

Of course there is. Medicare provides the same level of health care as the
private sector at a lower total cost. Do you contest this?

(We can discuss which "government functions" are mandatory and at what
level of government they must be run.)

No, we can't. Because you espouse a radical libertarian ideology shared by
less than 1% of the population.

The Republicans have been "in charge" for four years ... they have proven
to be no better than the decades of Democrats that preceded them at fiscal
responsibility.

Actually, they have been much worse. Maybe you missed the fact that, under
Clinton, the government was running a budget surplus of over $200 billion
and actually paying off the national debt.

Government is a self perpetuating bureaucracy (as in bureau-crazy) that
"grows" by nature.

Government is a set of institutions which implements the collective
political will as expressed under our representative democracy. Stop
talking about it like it is the boogyman.

It will take some sort of "revolution" somewhere to reverse what appears
to be an out of control situation.

The situation is only out of control because an irresponsible Republican
President and Congress have taken a budget surplus of over $200 billion and
turned it into a deficit of over $400 billion, while increasing the national
debt from $5.8 trillion to $8.3 trillion.

Reasonable growth in the federal government is expected, necessary, and
desirable. Such growth is inevitable when the economy and population are
growing, and new demands are constantly being made on the federal
government.

I wish I had an answer to the constant increase in government.

The answer is that reasonable growth in the federal government is expected,
necessary and desirable. Enough of your libertarian histrionics already.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


.

Loading