This election is about hope

[Canceled.LTroll.17]

You lie!!

 

[Good Luck]

The citizens have been lied to regarding HCR.

Yes they have. And the bigger liars are the ones who supported it. And the biggest liars of all are the ones who supported it and are now backpedaling.

I'm sure there were a lot of laughing *sses just before the Great Depression, as well. Unfortunately, people can't grasp the reason behind SS/pensions.

Today's mantra is the government has always controlled pension money and the people should have a chance to control their own. What they fail to understand is people controlled their own pension money for thousands of years including the 150+ years in the US before SS was implemented. When the Depression came they quickly found out people didn't do a very good job. Thus, SS came into being.

It's a case of the same old tired, worn out, tried n' failed ideas the Republicans want to revert to.

It's the same thing with the health care plan. Governments the world over started out without any pension plan or health plan. Then those things were implemented and, guess what, they have kept them for 50 or 75 or more years. In fact, none, not ONE, has reverted.

Again, I ask, what is there to discuss?

How about discussing your complete ignorance of history? (Or are you just a liar?)

How about discussing the fact that retirees condition in the Great Depression had nothing to do with SSI? This is because retirement at a certain age was not the traditon prior to the Great Depression. While people sometimes did retire for the purpose of enjoying some time outside work in old age, the more common occurrence was to work until unable, at which time the family stepped up and took care of the aged.

How about the fact that SSI was instituted, not to assure retirees an income, but to entice millions of older workers to leave their jobs, clearing the way for younger workers, which in turn would decrease the unemployment figures? Yes, the idea that SSI was to take care of those retirees who did a poor job of taking care of their own retirement is but one more socialist liberal lie. The reality is it was a trick to get more unemployed back into the work force by opening up job positions held by elderly Americans.

And health care is nothing like retirement. But you want to know why no system which has gone the way of government control has ever reverted? Because when government takes control of an industry, they will never, ever, willingly let go of that power.

 

[cawacko]

Yes they have. And the bigger liars are the ones who supported it. And the biggest liars of all are the ones who supported it and are now backpedaling.




How about discussing your complete ignorance of history? (Or are you just a liar?)

How about discussing the fact that retirees condition in the Great Depression had nothing to do with SSI? This is because retirement at a certain age was not the traditon prior to the Great Depression. While people sometimes did retire for the purpose of enjoying some time outside work in old age, the more common occurrence was to work until unable, at which time the family stepped up and took care of the aged.

How about the fact that SSI was instituted, not to assure retirees an income, but to entice millions of older workers to leave their jobs, clearing the way for younger workers, which in turn would decrease the unemployment figures? Yes, the idea that SSI was to take care of those retirees who did a poor job of taking care of their own retirement is but one more socialist liberal lie. The reality is it was a trick to get more unemployed back into the work force by opening up job positions held by elderly Americans.

And health care is nothing like retirement. But you want to know why no system which has gone the way of government control has ever reverted? Because when government takes control of an industry, they will never, ever, willingly let go of that power.

He's just flat out lying.

Controlling your own retirement via stocks, bonds, real estate etc. is NOT the same as giving people an OPTION to put 4% of their S.S. money into government selected conservative funds.

He's smart enough to know the difference so therefore he justs purposefully misrepresenting/lying.

 

[apple0154]

Yes they have. And the bigger liars are the ones who supported it. And the biggest liars of all are the ones who supported it and are now backpedaling.

How about discussing your complete ignorance of history? (Or are you just a liar?)

How about discussing the fact that retirees condition in the Great Depression had nothing to do with SSI? This is because retirement at a certain age was not the traditon prior to the Great Depression. While people sometimes did retire for the purpose of enjoying some time outside work in old age, the more common occurrence was to work until unable, at which time the family stepped up and took care of the aged.

How about the fact that SSI was instituted, not to assure retirees an income, but to entice millions of older workers to leave their jobs, clearing the way for younger workers, which in turn would decrease the unemployment figures? Yes, the idea that SSI was to take care of those retirees who did a poor job of taking care of their own retirement is but one more socialist liberal lie. The reality is it was a trick to get more unemployed back into the work force by opening up job positions held by elderly Americans.

And health care is nothing like retirement. But you want to know why no system which has gone the way of government control has ever reverted? Because when government takes control of an industry, they will never, ever, willingly let go of that power.

A trick? Where the hell did you ever get that idea? Show me a history book stating such. A link. Anything with the least bit of credibility.

That may have been a side benefit as it would be logical to have younger people working as they would produce more considering most jobs required physical strength but it wasn't the main reason. As for families stepping up few families step up today.

In any case what does it matter? The elderly have to be taken care of unless you advocate one should die when they're too old or ill to work.

As for government "letting go" people don't want the government to let go. Your ignorance of the world is astounding. The vast majority of citizens in every country with a government pension plan and a medical plan do not want the government to dismantle them. There is not ONE exception.

Have you ever seen or read about the citizens of a country demonstrating for the dismantling of those plans? Any country anywhere in the world?

Put your links where your mouth is. Let's see ONE country where the citizens are demanding dismantling those policies. Let's see ONE country where a prominent politician is campaigning on dismantling those policies.

If the citizens of any country wanted those policies dismantled there would be politicians jumping all over it. Unless, of course, you believe politicians see an opportunity to be elected and decline to take it. Yea, that must be it.

 

[apple0154]

He's just flat out lying.

Controlling your own retirement via stocks, bonds, real estate etc. is NOT the same as giving people an OPTION to put 4% of their S.S. money into government selected conservative funds.

He's smart enough to know the difference so therefore he justs purposefully misrepresenting/lying.

And which government selects the conservative funds? What companies qualify?

Just consider the recent ruling about political donations. Does it take a lot of brain power to see how getting on the "conservative fund list" could be manipulated? Does Enron ring a bell? Wouldn't they have been on a "conservative fund list"?

Do you think a Repub government would give a damn whether a company was any good if that company was donating to the Repub party?

Where is your head at?

 

[Good Luck]

A trick? Where the hell did you ever get that idea? Show me a history book stating such. A link. Anything with the least bit of credibility.

Stanley Schultz: The Great Depression: A Primary Source History
Michael A. Bernstein: The Great Depression: delayed recovery and economic change in America, 1929-1939
Ronald Edsforth: The New Deal: America's response to the Great Depression

That may have been a side benefit as it would be logical to have younger people working as they would produce more considering most jobs required physical strength but it wasn't the main reason. As for families stepping up few families step up today.

Exactly, and, contrary to popular belief, that is how it started out: a measure to address unemployment. Of course by the time it was developed into a workable idea and turned into actual legislation a lot of things were added to the basic idea of setting up a system that would allow older workers to retire. It lumped together a host of ideas of social insurance and placed them under a single umbrella. And of course few families step up these days. It is the hallmark of the so called "progressive" political philosophy: personal responsibility is discouraged while dependence on government to do it all for you is encouraged.

In any case what does it matter? The elderly have to be taken care of unless you advocate one should die when they're too old or ill to work.

Typical liberal "If you don't want government to do it, you want it to fail" bullshit. I've nothing against support systems for people who need them. The problem is the government wants everyone to be dependent on them as much as they can make it, because that gives government power over the people - and that is what government wants above all is power over the people.

As for government "letting go" people don't want the government to let go. Your ignorance of the world is astounding. The vast majority of citizens in every country with a government pension plan and a medical plan do not want the government to dismantle them. There is not ONE exception.

Have you ever seen or read about the citizens of a country demonstrating for the dismantling of those plans? Any country anywhere in the world?

Of course - because the people are totally dependent on their government programs, and they know full well they are dependent on them. Maybe you think total dependence on government is a good thing. I do not.

Put your links where your mouth is. Let's see ONE country where the citizens are demanding dismantling those policies. Let's see ONE country where a prominent politician is campaigning on dismantling those policies.

Classic strawman argument. How about this: YOU point out the EXACT WORDS where I made such a claim that it needs to be backed with links. Fucking liar. No where did I say the people of other countries are asking for their systems to be dismantled. What I said was that once a power is granted government, that power will NEVER be willingly relinquished by the government. It is not about the government "caring" for the little guy. It's the government USING the little guy to achieve and maintain control. That's why social systems, from welfare, to SSI, to nationalized health, are invariably are designed to create dependency, so once one is inside, it is hell's own battle to get back out. It's about power. It always has been, and it always will be.

If the citizens of any country wanted those policies dismantled there would be politicians jumping all over it. Unless, of course, you believe politicians see an opportunity to be elected and decline to take it. Yea, that must be it.

There is a common term describing people who are overly dependent on the corporate economy for their means: wage slave. Heard of it? Sure, I'll bet you've even used it. Obviously the use of the word slave denotes an attitude that it is not good to be so dependent on a corporation for one's livelihood, indicating strongly that the corporation has undue control over the person's life, even outside their jobs.

So how is it that kind of dependence is seen as bad, yet the same people who regularly use the term "wage slave" seem to have no problems with being equally, if not more, dependent on government for one's livelihood? Are you so fucked in the head to believe that government leadership is somehow more benevolent that the leadership of a corporation?

 

[Liberty]

Not everything we’ve done over the last two years has worked as quickly as we had hoped, and I am keenly aware that not all of our policies have been popular.

So, no, our job is not easy, but you didn’t elect me to do what was easy.

I didn't elect you maser President. I'm tired of the plantation life.

I voted for the Libertarian, who's name I can't remember.

 

[apple0154]

Classic strawman argument. How about this: YOU point out the EXACT WORDS where I made such a claim that it needs to be backed with links. Fucking liar. No where did I say the people of other countries are asking for their systems to be dismantled. What I said was that once a power is granted government, that power will NEVER be willingly relinquished by the government. It is not about the government "caring" for the little guy. It's the government USING the little guy to achieve and maintain control. That's why social systems, from welfare, to SSI, to nationalized health, are invariably are designed to create dependency, so once one is inside, it is hell's own battle to get back out. It's about power. It always has been, and it always will be.

You're not making any sense. Let's take this one step at a time.

You wrote, "No where did I say the people of other countries are asking for their systems to be dismantled." That's correct, you didn't say that, however, you did write in this post, "What I said was that once a power is granted government, that power will NEVER be willingly relinquished by the government."

What, exactly, is your argument? It sounds like you're saying government won't relinquish the power the people want the government to have and that doesn't make any sense, at all.

For the umpteenth time the citizens in countries with government medical want the government to run/control/supervise a medical plan. It's not a matter of the government not wanting to relinquish control. It is the opposite. The people insist the government NOT relinquish control.

That's why I asked for links to any country showing the people want their government to relinquish control. If you believe the problem is governments won't relinquish control give me one example. Show ONE example where the citizens of a country, any country, with government medical want the government to relinquish control.

I'll save you the time. There isn't any example. None. Not ONE, so your argument is utter nonsense.

There is a common term describing people who are overly dependent on the corporate economy for their means: wage slave. Heard of it? Sure, I'll bet you've even used it. Obviously the use of the word slave denotes an attitude that it is not good to be so dependent on a corporation for one's livelihood, indicating strongly that the corporation has undue control over the person's life, even outside their jobs.

So how is it that kind of dependence is seen as bad, yet the same people who regularly use the term "wage slave" seem to have no problems with being equally, if not more, dependent on government for one's livelihood? Are you so fucked in the head to believe that government leadership is somehow more benevolent that the leadership of a corporation?

If you think a government is similar to a corporation it is you whose brain has atrophied. A corporation is run by a handful of people who actually make decisions whereas the US government has over 500 members who vote on decisions. Who would you prefer to make decisions that affect you; 5 people or 500 people?

Where are the pensions for the people who worked at Enron or Lehman Brothers for that matter?

Try to use common sense. Which entity is more stable, a corporation or the US Government? Enron or the US Government? Lehman Brothers or the US Government? General Motors or the US Government?

Depending on ones government is not abdicating personal responsibility any more than buying home or auto insurance is abdicating personal responsibility. SS is an insurance. The health plan is an insurance. Welfare. Unemployment. They are all there as an insurance against abject poverty.

As for the books you linked to it didn't take long to come across this. "The same Brookings study showed that nearly 80% of all families had no savings whatsoever in 1929. They all would be especially vulnerable when the Great Depression began to drastically lower employment and incomes."
The New Deal: America's response to the Great Depression. Page 22.

80% of all families with absolutely no savings. From 1776 to 1929 the people were free to take "personal responsibility". After 153 years, 6 or 7 generations, 80% of the families had no savings. Zero. Zilch. But here you are talking about how much better things would be if the government would get out of people's lives and let them take "personal responsibility".

Obviously, you have learned nothing. All you offer is the typical regurgitated old, tired, worn out, tried and failed Republican ideas. The key words there being "tried and failed". Tried and failed for over 150 years since the US became a country and tried and failed for the thousands of years prior to that. From the earliest times human beings banded together appointing leaders and helping each other.

It's truly shocking, in this day and age, to come across someone who understands so little.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Stanley Schultz: The Great Depression: A Primary Source History
Michael A. Bernstein: The Great Depression: delayed recovery and economic change in America, 1929-1939
Ronald Edsforth: The New Deal: America's response to the Great Depression

Exactly, and, contrary to popular belief, that is how it started out: a measure to address unemployment. Of course by the time it was developed into a workable idea and turned into actual legislation a lot of things were added to the basic idea of setting up a system that would allow older workers to retire. It lumped together a host of ideas of social insurance and placed them under a single umbrella. And of course few families step up these days. It is the hallmark of the so called "progressive" political philosophy: personal responsibility is discouraged while dependence on government to do it all for you is encouraged.

Typical liberal "If you don't want government to do it, you want it to fail" bullshit. I've nothing against support systems for people who need them. The problem is the government wants everyone to be dependent on them as much as they can make it, because that gives government power over the people - and that is what government wants above all is power over the people.

Of course - because the people are totally dependent on their government programs, and they know full well they are dependent on them. Maybe you think total dependence on government is a good thing. I do not.

Classic strawman argument. How about this: YOU point out the EXACT WORDS where I made such a claim that it needs to be backed with links. Fucking liar. No where did I say the people of other countries are asking for their systems to be dismantled. What I said was that once a power is granted government, that power will NEVER be willingly relinquished by the government. It is not about the government "caring" for the little guy. It's the government USING the little guy to achieve and maintain control. That's why social systems, from welfare, to SSI, to nationalized health, are invariably are designed to create dependency, so once one is inside, it is hell's own battle to get back out. It's about power. It always has been, and it always will be.

There is a common term describing people who are overly dependent on the corporate economy for their means: wage slave. Heard of it? Sure, I'll bet you've even used it. Obviously the use of the word slave denotes an attitude that it is not good to be so dependent on a corporation for one's livelihood, indicating strongly that the corporation has undue control over the person's life, even outside their jobs.

So how is it that kind of dependence is seen as bad, yet the same people who regularly use the term "wage slave" seem to have no problems with being equally, if not more, dependent on government for one's livelihood? Are you so fucked in the head to believe that government leadership is somehow more benevolent that the leadership of a corporation?

 

[cawacko]

And which government selects the conservative funds? What companies qualify?

Just consider the recent ruling about political donations. Does it take a lot of brain power to see how getting on the "conservative fund list" could be manipulated? Does Enron ring a bell? Wouldn't they have been on a "conservative fund list"?

Do you think a Repub government would give a damn whether a company was any good if that company was donating to the Repub party?

Where is your head at?

What do you mean 'which government'? How many governments do we have?

And as you have been told numerous times on here there was never an option to invest in individual companies so your Enron example you like to repetitively use doesn't fly. You don't have to be Warren Buffett to know a more diversified fund helps spread the risk and within a large fund you might have several home runs and you might even have an Enron but the Enron does not sink your fund.

And now you are just being outright tinfoil with your last scheme.

 

[Phantasmal]

What do you mean 'which government'? How many governments do we have?

And as you have been told numerous times on here there was never an option to invest in individual companies so your Enron example you like to repetitively use doesn't fly. You don't have to be Warren Buffett to know a more diversified fund helps spread the risk and within a large fund you might have several home runs and you might even have an Enron but the Enron does not sink your fund.

And now you are just being outright tinfoil with your last scheme.

There is the ghost government, the one none of us have any control over and they have control of the weapons of mass destruction!

 

[apple0154]

What do you mean 'which government'? How many governments do we have?

The government in power, be it the Repubs or Dems.

And as you have been told numerous times on here there was never an option to invest in individual companies so your Enron example you like to repetitively use doesn't fly. You don't have to be Warren Buffett to know a more diversified fund helps spread the risk and within a large fund you might have several home runs and you might even have an Enron but the Enron does not sink your fund.

If there is a list of companies making up a portfolio someone has to decide which companies are included in the portfolio. For example, although there are rumors Soros has abandoned the Dems, do you think the Repubs would have authorized companies owned/controlled by Soros in '04 or '08 to be included in companies millions of Americans could invest in as part of their SS contribution? In other words if the government can decide which companies qualify as a SS contribution would they not pick companies which support them?

And now you are just being outright tinfoil with your last scheme.

The bottom line is still the same. There is no company as secure as the Government of the United States.

SS is just about the minimum a person requires to survive on. It has to be there for everyone who requires it. If 4% can be removed then simply remove 4% and let people do what they want with it but don't tie it into SS.

There has to be a minimum amount of money the government has to ensure a minimum payment to people regardless of what happens. If there is a shortage the government has the power to raise taxes to ensure the elderly have food and shelter. SS is not a get rich quick/retire early plan. It is, first and foremost, an insurance policy.

The argument could be made people should have the right to invest their unemployment insurance payments so they'll have funds if unemployed. The people should have the right to invest part of their taxes in a welfare fund in case they become destitute and require welfare. Simply get rid of all insurance/social policies.

Furthermore, what formula is used to derive the 4% figure? Why not 5 %? Or 6%?

It's the same old, same old. Deny further social programs and chip away at the current ones.

There is a reason those programs are there. We know what happened when they were not there but some folks portray it as if no one knows.

Have we learned nothing from Glass-Steagall?

Policies that are in place are in place for a reason. Just as it has been shown 80% of all families had no savings whatsoever in 1929 families, today, have very little in the way of savings and many are in debt. With the economy the way it is and future forecasts not all that great this is the worst time to be lessening social policies.

The only possible motivation is that of those who have plenty and don't want to have to share if things take a turn for the worst. If government has no responsibility to the citizens there will be no need to increase taxes to help those in need. That's the motivation and that's the bottom line here.

 

[Good Luck]

You're not making any sense. Let's take this one step at a time.

You wrote, "No where did I say the people of other countries are asking for their systems to be dismantled." That's correct, you didn't say that, however, you did write in this post, "What I said was that once a power is granted government, that power will NEVER be willingly relinquished by the government."

What, exactly, is your argument? It sounds like you're saying government won't relinquish the power the people want the government to have and that doesn't make any sense, at all.

For the umpteenth time the citizens in countries with government medical want the government to run/control/supervise a medical plan. It's not a matter of the government not wanting to relinquish control. It is the opposite. The people insist the government NOT relinquish control.

That's why I asked for links to any country showing the people want their government to relinquish control. If you believe the problem is governments won't relinquish control give me one example. Show ONE example where the citizens of a country, any country, with government medical want the government to relinquish control.

I'll save you the time. There isn't any example. None. Not ONE, so your argument is utter nonsense.

Yea, right. Find someone who is utterly dependent on something that wants what they are dependent on to go away. While you're at it, why not challenge me to find someone who want to stop breathing. Of all the assinine, stupid, blind arguments. The point (as is usual for big mommy government teat sucking babies) rises right over your head.

DEPENDENCE is not a good thing. Is it proper parenting to purposely keep your children dependent on you? Or do you promote their independence?

Governments PROMOTE dependence because it gives them power. Idiots like you suck it up like mommy's milk. Why is that? Too scared to give life a shot on your own? Or are you doing OK, but too lazy and selfish to be botehred with helping those in need, so you want to make government do it for you?

If you think a government is similar to a corporation it is you whose brain has atrophied. A corporation is run by a handful of people who actually make decisions whereas the US government has over 500 members who vote on decisions. Who would you prefer to make decisions that affect you; 5 people or 500 people?

Where are the pensions for the people who worked at Enron or Lehman Brothers for that matter?

Try to use common sense. Which entity is more stable, a corporation or the US Government? Enron or the US Government? Lehman Brothers or the US Government? General Motors or the US Government?

It is not about which is more stable. Nor did I say corporations are like government. (Do you need a remedial reading course? You can try this: http://www.time4learning.com/reading-programs.shtml)

Once again the point goes WHOOSH, right over your tiny pointed head. The POINT is about DEPENDENCY you fucking moron.

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM WHEN ONE IS DEPENDENT?

Dependency is NOT A GOOD THING! You want to be dependent, I feel sorry for you. But DON'T think you should have the authority to FORCE your dependencies on me. I do NOT want to be dependent on the government, NOR to a corporation. I spent my career in military service to this country, because I believe it is worth fighting to preserve. And during those years I raised a family, skimped and saved to buy a home on a small piece of land, skimped and saved some more so I could have a decent retirement. I live off my land and my savings. I split my military pension between the Church and several charities.

While business and governemnt are two significantly different types of entity, dependency on either is to give up one's liberty in seeking security. BOTH are a bad situation to allow society to devolve into.

Good grief, you big government types are all the same: total, complete, utter materialists to the Nth degree. You think life is fine as long as you have your mommy government to hand you your little breakfasts in the morning, and wipe your poopy butts after going potty. I prefer freedom.

Depending on ones government is not abdicating personal responsibility any more than buying home or auto insurance is abdicating personal responsibility. SS is an insurance. The health plan is an insurance. Welfare. Unemployment. They are all there as an insurance against abject poverty.

When the program is mandated, forced, and dependency on it inescapable, that is NOT "insurance". Insurance is "just in case IF it is needed". Government mandated dependency makes it a matter of "when", not "if". There is a huge difference.

As for the books you linked to it didn't take long to come across this. "The same Brookings study showed that nearly 80% of all families had no savings whatsoever in 1929. They all would be especially vulnerable when the Great Depression began to drastically lower employment and incomes."
The New Deal: America's response to the Great Depression. Page 22.

80% of all families with absolutely no savings. From 1776 to 1929 the people were free to take "personal responsibility". After 153 years, 6 or 7 generations, 80% of the families had no savings. Zero. Zilch. But here you are talking about how much better things would be if the government would get out of people's lives and let them take "personal responsibility".

You do LOVE to parade your ignorance, don't you? Are you actually claiming that the economic statistics of 1929 can be applied equally across the period of time from 1929 dating back to 1789? (That is when this nation actually began, moron. 1776 was when they signed the Declaration of Independence - an act which required the American Revolution to enforce.) Are you really this ignorant, or do you think no one will catch you at using statistics like an addict uses meth?

Actually, personal savings was not so dire prior to WWI. It was going to a war economy, then coming back out of it that started the ball rolling down hill. Then government stepped in with this, that, and the other thing to mitigate the post war recession, which brought in the roaring 20s - the first significant period when we relied on a credit economy during peacetime. And it was the failure of that credit based economy that led to the Great Depression. And we have been on a credit economy since then, supported and promoted in one degree or another by both major parties and both mainstream political philosophies. And THERE is the "tried and failed" repetition you seek. Not of capitalism, however, but rather of the liberal idea that we can spend multiple generations on a buy now, pay later economy without consequences.

So, gee Wally, I guess when you are in a CREDIT economy, SAVINGS aren't going to be very prevalent, are they? People were too busy GOING IN DEBT to bother with savings. And they went into debt with the blessings of government and government regulations on banking policies. But that is not a 140 year-long economic symptom as you insinuate. It was specific to the period, and had specific causes, part of which was GOVERNMENT trying to run the economy by promoting credit.

Obviously, you have learned nothing. All you offer is the typical regurgitated old, tired, worn out, tried and failed Republican ideas. The key words there being "tried and failed". Tried and failed for over 150 years since the US became a country and tried and failed for the thousands of years prior to that. From the earliest times human beings banded together appointing leaders and helping each other.

If you mean I have not bought into your big mommy government bullshit, then yes, I guess I haven't "learned" to turn my brain off like you have.

OTOH, I have learned history. YOU have not.

When it comes to tried and failed, the big government liberals have the absolute monopoly lock on it, always under the excuse "we didn't spend enough", "The program wasn't big enough", etc. etc. etc.

Of course then your complete, total, and absolute ignorance of history kicks in. "Tried and failed for thousands of years prior to that"? And you call ME unlearned? How about some references to historical texts that describe an economy like ours 1000+ years ago? A thousand years ago societies were either tribal, feudal or imperial. Where is the "tried and failed" of free-capitalist economics from the Dark Ages, you simpering idiot? Where is the "tried and failed" capitalism of the Roman Empire, or the ancient Greek democracy? (Tell me, are you really so ignorant as to claim the economic policies of today's Republican party were "tried" thousands of years ago, or are you one of the biggest lying sacks of shit in all of political debate?)

If you want to use historical reference to defend your stance LEARN SOME HISTORY. Because as it is, anyone with above a 4th grade education can clearly see your historical knowledge is a complete and total zero.

It's truly shocking, in this day and age, to come across someone who understands so little.

And yet here you are, blathering on like the good government tool you enjoy being, while displaying a lack of historical literacy that defies comprehension.

 

[Good Luck]

And which government selects the conservative funds? What companies qualify?

Just consider the recent ruling about political donations. Does it take a lot of brain power to see how getting on the "conservative fund list" could be manipulated? Does Enron ring a bell? Wouldn't they have been on a "conservative fund list"?

Do you think a Repub government would give a damn whether a company was any good if that company was donating to the Repub party?

Where is your head at?

And yet more displays of utter, outright, total and complete brain dead ignorance. Do you think that the government is going to approve investment portfolios each Congress? Again, are you REALLY this utterly stupid, or just that big a liar?

Obviously (to anyone with brains, that is) the "approved" investment referred to is not going to be some list of companies it is OK to invest in. What it would be, if we went that direction, is a set of regulations defining the types of investments that are allowed, such as T-bills, major companies, bearer bonds, etc, but prohibiting others, such as penny stocks or other high risk investments. You can buy both Microsoft and Apple stock, but you can't place it all on "red" at the roulette table.