The Inconsistency in the Tea Party

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

Social Security and retirement are 2 very different things - most of the retired/old people I know retire (or don't) on their own financial schedule (and before full SS benefits kick in).

Usually this is because they have put in a certain number of years to be eligible, own the company, or are offered an early retirement as part of a corporate merger/buyout.

And Social Security is only supposed to be a safety net that provides a minimal living stipend - less than 25% of one's retirement income.

Unemployment is paid by the state and is funded by employers, Social Security is paid by the Federal government and is funded by employee contributions, so they don't balance each other out.

Andy,

Huh?

Your hard work, self reliance, the fact that you have lived below your means and saved, etc. etc. have served you well. But I'm not talking about your virtues. I'm talking about discussion/debate of issues.

During our conversation about fixing our country one side said they want to end tax cuts for the wealthiest. You made your case to the contrary by saying that the top 5% pay 95% of our taxes "or close to it".

Buzz pointed out that it is actually 60% which isn't close at all.

Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, retracting your inaccurate support for your point and reloading-

You:

• Called Buzz out for the "antic" of using your "generalization" against you
• Gave those of us concerned with "absolute accuracy" a sarcastic fauxpoligy
• Stated that you don't accept his "experts" and accused him of not accepting yours (but you didn't cite any experts)
• Lumped your "facts" (which you acknowledged weren't based on research) and his together as being from "unreliable sources"
• Stated that anyone who doesn't think all sources are unreliable because they have an agenda just hasn't lived long enough yet

So I call you on this and you respond with-

What I am citing, and what so many refuse to accept, is what I have learned personally over the years. It is often amazing to me how little one's personal results count on this board. I may be wrong but I see these personal episodes and their results as indicative of our country as a whole I do not immediately accept organizations, pundits or experts as ultimate and absolute on either the right or the left. I am sorry you do not approve of my method of making decisions. It has held me in good stead for many years, and yes, in many cases it is a result of a "gut feeling" and while occasionally wrong more often right. Therefore, I will continue to post what I feel, have learned, read and experienced. You are certainly under no obligation to accept it, as you are well aware.

Andy,

Huh?

Your hard work, self reliance, the fact that you have lived below your means and saved, etc. etc. have served you well. But I'm talking about your virtues. I'm talking about discussion/debate of issues.

During our conversation about fixing our country one side said they want to end tax cuts for the wealthiest. You made your case to the contrary by saying that the top 5% pay 95% of our taxes "or close to it".

Buzz pointed out that it is actually 60% which isn't close at all.

Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, retracting your inaccurate support for your point and reloading-

You:

• Called Buzz out for the "antic" of using your "generalization" against you
• Gave those of us concerned with "absolute accuracy" a sarcastic fauxpoligy
• Stated that you don't accept his "experts" and accused him of not accepting yours (but you didn't cite any experts)
• Lumped your "facts" (which you acknowledged weren't based on research) and his together as being from "unreliable sources"
• Stated that anyone who doesn't think all sources are unreliable because they have an agenda just hasn't lived long enough yet

So I call you on this and you respond with-

I was getting ready to comment to, but you beat me to it. Andy, I would be a lot more interested in listening to what you had to say if you didn't throw a jab (or 5) in every post. People who disagree with you might be correct, even though they have not lived as long as you. Discounting people who have factual sources is ridiculous. Their opinion is just as valid and important as yours- more so in a discussion if they can back up what they say.

The civility in discourse rules that you demand from the left side of the discussions never seem to apply to you. You have the opportunity to lead by example!

Don't hold your breath Geo, the geezer of blue mountain has spoken and you'll have to live with it. I'm constantly bashed by him when I simply don't agree with him or see it his way. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm pretty sure he's just a tea party lemming hell bent on taking this country over the cliff.

Alright- can some of y'all please lead by good example, and not BE the bad example?

.

.

Darn, I thought I had it all worked out.

I am sorry you'all disagree so thoroughly with me. So be it. If you would like a resume of my qualifications, education and experience, I shall be glad to supply it for you. I know it sounds arrogant but it is every bit as good and valid as some of the "experts" quoted on this board. Do I really think I know it all? No, of course not. There are many subjects I am not only ignorant regarding but which I have no interest in or wish to discuss. I take great exception to saying that my posts jab and are ill mannered when in most cases they are not. True, there are some occasions where the sheer idiocy and lack of common sense leave me unbelieving and I respond accordingly. I am truly sorry for that. It is no secret that I believe we are headed in the wrong direction. It is also no secret that I acknowledge that when I consider it required. For all you critics, be my guest. It is your right just as it is mine to only express an opinion without all the support and verification from the N.Y. Times if I wish to do so. It is going to be a rough two years and a little civil discourse from both sides would be nice. Please bear in mind we all have our opinions and lives to lead and we will not all wish to travel the same path.

Liberals argue from fact. Conservatives argue from authority and credentials.

Liberals argue from fact. Conservatives argue from authority and credentials.

And whose quote is this? Just curious. You are entitled to anything you wish to believe.

And whose quote is this? Just curious. You are entitled to anything you wish to believe.

It's my own.

It's my own. Thanks for giving me permission to think as I please oh mighty one.

Pretty good quote though completely flawed and you're welcome oh whatever one.

I am sorry you'all disagree so thoroughly with me. So be it. If you would like a resume of my qualifications, education and experience, I shall be glad to supply it for you. I know it sounds arrogant but it is every bit as good and valid as some of the "experts" quoted on this board. Do I really think I know it all? No, of course not. There are many subjects I am not only ignorant regarding but which I have no interest in or wish to discuss. I take great exception to saying that my posts jab and are ill mannered when in most cases they are not. True, there are some occasions where the sheer idiocy and lack of common sense leave me unbelieving and I respond accordingly. I am truly sorry for that. It is no secret that I believe we are headed in the wrong direction. It is also no secret that I acknowledge that when I consider it required. For all you critics, be my guest. It is your right just as it is mine to only express an opinion without all the support and verification from the N.Y. Times if I wish to do so. It is going to be a rough two years and a little civil discourse from both sides would be nice. Please bear in mind we all have our opinions and lives to lead and we will not all wish to travel the same path.

We don't necessarily disagree with you or think that your opinions/experiences are not valid discussion points.

What we are questioning is that lately you seem to think your opinion/experiences trump facts and expert analysis - even from conservative sources/people who have had similar life experiences.

We used to have some great discussions in which you know that we regarded your opinions in certain areas as expert. Now every thread (I don't know that they can be called discussions anymore) seems to turn into an "us vs. them" and a complete disregard for facts if they do not agree with you and any dissenting opinion or idea is a personal attack on you and your way of life.

Drunk with landslide victory kool aid.

Andy,

Huh?

Your hard work, self reliance, the fact that you have lived below your means and saved, etc. etc. have served you well. But I'm not talking about your virtues. I'm talking about discussion/debate of issues.

During our conversation about fixing our country one side said they want to end tax cuts for the wealthiest. You made your case to the contrary by saying that the top 5% pay 95% of our taxes "or close to it".

Buzz pointed out that it is actually 60% which isn't close at all.

Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, retracting your inaccurate support for your point and reloading-

You:

• Called Buzz out for the "antic" of using your "generalization" against you
• Gave those of us concerned with "absolute accuracy" a sarcastic fauxpoligy
• Stated that you don't accept his "experts" and accused him of not accepting yours (but you didn't cite any experts)
• Lumped your "facts" (which you acknowledged weren't based on research) and his together as being from "unreliable sources"
• Stated that anyone who doesn't think all sources are unreliable because they have an agenda just hasn't lived long enough yet

So I call you on this and you respond with-

.
I'll add to your rep on this one as soon as the system allows me to!


.

It goes without saying that the teabaggers are no good for society. Their message all along has been open your mouth, close your eyes, and you'll be in for a big surprise. Not all of us were surprised and we knew enough not to bite.

It goes without saying that the teabaggers are no good for society.

Find that an interesting observation Lucifer!

All this tap-dancing is hurting my head. What is so hard about budgeting every single item on the budget about 2% less than they got last year? I don't see why spreading the pain evenly is such a strange concept? Of course, slashing defense a significant amount is an impossibility, but surely just not increasing the budget every year is possible.

Maybe budgeting will be easier since Obama will not be hopping from state to state on the big plane campaigning. That shoud help the budget out a little.

This is the last word I'll say on this particular thread. A friend at the Commission meeting tonight advised me to quit as I could not "win" as "some" will never accept what is said and others don't look at what is being said objectively. They were right. As I've said many times, I don't post to try and convience "some" here on my particular position. I post so that the lurkers and guests, many of whom have rational objectivity, will see my side of the story. Thank you all for all the kind comments and I promise to try and be a good boy in the future.

This is the last word I'll say on this particular thread. A friend at the Commission meeting tonight advised me to quit as I could not "win" as "some" will never accept what is said and others don't look at what is being said objectively. They were right. As I've said many times, I don't post to try and convience "some" here on my particular position. I post so that the lurkers and guests, many of whom have rational objectivity, will see my side of the story. Thank you all for all the kind comments and I promise to try and be a good boy in the future.

Andy, it's true-
some of us will never accept a disregard for credible sources during debate/discussion. And you won't win against folks who try to hold each other accountable when they are wrong but stubbornly won't admit it. Not sure what part of that lacks being rational and objective. This too shall be my last word on the subject.

There are so many inconsistencies with each party, that I call them Consistent Inconsistencies.