so, not the first time

Post #381,723 by boxley 10/7/13 8:09:49 AM Reply	so, not the first time democrats have pulled this crap, good to know :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,726 by folkert 10/7/13 8:37:15 AM Reply	Republican's have done the same shutdown extrapolation... I believe Reagan did, during the Christmas of Discontent. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,835 by CRConrad 10/9/13 6:55:51 AM Reply	You think Clinton shut down the govt voluntarily, or did... ...the opposition -- which AFAIK then as now was the Republicans -- force him to, just like now? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,839 by Another Scott 10/9/13 8:21:34 AM Reply	Newt didn't like having to sit in the back. Yes, it's "respect my authority!!!1" all over again. http://en.wikipedia....f_1995%E2%80%9396 During the crisis, Gingrich made a complaint at a press breakfast that, during a flight to and from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in Israel, Clinton had not taken the opportunity to talk about the budget and Gingrich had been directed to leave the plane via the rear door. The perception arose that the Republican stance on the budget was partly due to this "snub" by Clinton,[10] and media coverage reflected this perception, including an editorial cartoon which depicted Gingrich as an infant throwing a temper tantrum.[11] Opposing politicians used this opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff.[12][13] Later, the polls suggested that the event damaged Gingrich politically[14] and he referred to his comments as his "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.[15] The shutdown also influenced the 1996 Presidential election. Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, was running for President in 1996. Because of his need to campaign, Dole wanted to solve the budget crisis in January 1996 despite the willingness of other Republicans to continue the shutdown unless their demands were met. In particular, as Gingrich and Dole had been seen as potential rivals for the 1996 Presidential nomination, they had a tense working relationship.[16][17] The shutdown has also been cited as having a role in Clinton's successful re-election in 1996.[17] There were lots of reasons for the Gingrich shutdown, but butt-hurt was one of them. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,842 by CRConrad 10/9/13 8:42:53 AM Reply	What I don't understand is, with this so well-known... ...what the fuck is the BOx on about -- his triumphant crowing, "It was the Democrats fault then too!" -- when it is utterly utterly obvious that it is and was, then as now, the Republicans' doing? Can anyone really believe that it isn't? What kind of mushrooms must he have eaten to believe that? Or, if he's smarter than a footstool he has to know that's not the truth he's cawing, so why does he do it then -- does he think he can fool anyone? Or is he just trying to fool himself? I really don't get it. Do you have any sensible reason to behave so totally in-sensibly, Bill? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,850 by Another Scott 10/9/13 10:14:06 AM Reply	Box likes divided government. He doesn't trust politicians to do anything except raise taxes and reduce his rights. Anything that gums up the process is good. Neither side can be trusted. It doesn't matter what you point out about how bad the Republicans are, that won't mean that he is going to support their opposition. At least I think that's the gist of his posts here. I could be wrong. ;-) HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,853 by boxley 10/9/13 10:32:13 AM Reply	pretty much :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,855 by CRConrad 10/9/13 10:43:56 AM Reply	That kind of nihilist should get his arse out not only... ...of any civilised country, but even the USA. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,869 by boxley 10/9/13 11:46:17 AM Reply	decent realestate over here http://www.guryasama...90-ceelka-hillaac Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,897 by CRConrad 10/9/13 6:58:09 PM Reply	If you don't have anything sensible to say... ...has it never occurred to you that you could just not say anything? I have no fucking idea what the fuck that was supposed to mean. (And I'm not sure even you do.) If you have a point, state it in human-readable language; otherwise, do us all a favour and just shut the fuck up. You now owe me several seconds that I wasted staring at that stupid page. Will you ever be able to give me back those unique moments of my life? Naah, thought so. Which means, you're as bad as the fucking robber barons you support -- they also only take without any intention of ever returning what they stole. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,898 by boxley 10/9/13 7:00:51 PM Reply	the page was in your response that I should move The link was obviously to a realtor page, there was enough english on the left frame that even in your cups you should have discerned the location or are you getting that addled in your dotage? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,896 by CRConrad 10/9/13 6:51:53 PM Reply	Seems in the first shock(), I forgot the main point: This "courageous" equal-denigration of both sides of the political* spectrum of course totally ignores the much bigger elephant in the room: Politicians, of whichever colour, of course already have humongously less power over not only the BOx but also actual Americans than do the economically mighty of the world. There are two sides not only in politics, where they are called "left" and "right", but in actual every-day ordinary real life to: The rich and the poor. There, basically, the rich want the poor to work for as little money as possible, and the poor want to earn as much money as possible for their work. These sides' interests are as fundamentally opposed as ever the political parties'; in fact, the parties are just one front in this larger struggle -- the right is totally for the rich, and the left unfortunately also far too much for the rich, but at least a little less so than the right. What I don't get is why anyone who isn't part of the 0.1% would support the right even to the extent of "the left are just as bad!"? No, dammit, they aren't -- it's the right that has an obvious and explicit agenda of "Larry Ellison should have more of BOx's money!", and the left does not have such an agenda. Sure, they don't have enough of a "the BOx should have more of Larry Ellison's money" or even a "Larry Ellison should have less of BOx's money" agenda, but at least "No, Larry Ellison should not necessarily have even more of BOx's money than he's already getting" seems to be in there somewhere. Not opposing the right is cutting one's own throat; "a pox on both their houses" is stupid and shows only that one has fallen for the Faux-News "fair and balanced" sham. No, one side IS objectively, actually, obviously MORE poxy, MORE bad for you! How the fuck can anyone be so blind as to not see that?!? --- (): At the utter simple-mindedness of that childish viewpoint. -- Christian R. Conrad* Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,899 by boxley 10/9/13 7:08:07 PM Reply	heh, the wonderful democratic plan called the healthcare act is aimed a gutting the lesser middle class and forcing them to to enjoy the dubious ability to feed themselves as the truly poor while painting us as traitors because we are not going to enjoy getting fucked. The rich don't care, they can afford healthcare so the legislation doesn't affect them at all. It is the people on fixed incomes that watch their monthly premiums go from $338 to $1140. Now if that is the best plan that the American left has to "keep less of my money going to Larry Ellison" then fuck them. Your only point seems to be "rich people! rich people!" Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,902 by folkert 10/9/13 7:36:58 PM Reply	REALLY? You honestly believe that... oh my. Those people are getting subsidies. You are still a dolt! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,904 by boxley 10/9/13 7:50:45 PM Reply	no, they are not getting subsidies. Read the links Oh wait, you don't have to because you have already projected the story line Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,906 by folkert 10/9/13 8:23:40 PM Reply	Go fsck yourself. Welcome to 1/2 what I pay a month plus $HYARGE deductible. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,916 by boxley 10/9/13 9:27:34 PM Reply	can't its not long enough and your point is that you want a lot of people to get fucked over because you are getting fucked over. Very rational of you. Leave it there. I have sympathy for your dilemma, why don't you wait a month for the IT side to get better then see what they offer you and report back. It may help Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,917 by folkert 10/9/13 9:28:52 PM Reply	Nope wrong conclusion. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,933 by CRConrad 10/10/13 6:32:04 AM Reply	Then route it over your hip, not the shoulder like I do.
Post #381,913 by Another Scott 10/9/13 9:18:14 PM Reply	Which ones? This one? http://news.yahoo.co...28-040209815.html (Reuters) - Americans will pay an average premium of $328 monthly for a mid-tier health insurance plan when the Obamacare health exchanges open for enrollment next week, and most will qualify for government subsidies to lower that price, the federal government said on Wednesday. The figure, based on data for approved insurance plans in 48 states, is the broadest national estimate for the cost of coverage when President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law takes full effect next year. The prices of the new plans are at the heart of a political debate over whether they will be affordable enough to attract millions of uninsured Americans when enrollment begins on October 1. KFF calculator: http://www.npr.org/b...ry-our-calculator US Average. $50000 income 2 adults, each 30 years old, nonsmokers 2 children, under 21, nonsmokers No employer-provided insurance results The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid. Household income in 2014:212% of poverty level Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:$8,975 Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:6.73% Amount you pay for the premium:$3,365 per year (which equals 6.73% of your household income and covers 38% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$5,609 (which covers 62% of the overall premium) BRONZE PLAN The premium and subsidy amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You have the option to apply the subsidy toward the purchase of other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive). For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $1,829 per year (which is 3.66% of your household income, after taking into account $5,609 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan. $280 a month for decent health insurance for that family doesn't sound too bad. Yes, it'll be a stretch for some, but so would almost any medical expense. (I think the Silver plan is better for most (if they can afford it) because it has more cost-sharing so per-event costs are lower.) Rates are higher for smokers. (Another reason for you to quit, if you haven't already.) You have some better links? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,915 by boxley 10/9/13 9:25:02 PM Reply	try a different demographic the folks that currently have a high deductible catastrophic plan earn 60k and are 55years old anecdotal I got notice that my blue cross was being canceled. The cheapest Obamacare replacement is $160 per month more and my total risk increases from $5000 to $12,500. The good news is that my menopausal wife and I now have maternity, pediatric dental and vision! Thanks a lot. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,920 by Another Scott 10/9/13 9:56:12 PM Reply	facebook/healthcare.gov Thanks for the quote that let me get to the linky. Roger Filips seems to be an OD in Nebraska, 68739. http://www.hartingto...right-future-here Assuming he's 60 and she's 55 and they don't smoke, and they make $100k a year, his annual premium would be $12,534 for a silver plan, $10,388 for a bronze plan. No subsidy. (If they make $60k a year, then they'd get a $6,834 subsidy.) He doesn't say why his BC was being cancelled. Presumably, being a health care provider, he recognizes the importance of having insurance. And normally would be happy to be able to get any insurance in that circumstance. His snarkiness in his comment makes me suspect that there's much more to the story than he's posting (e.g. he used to have 2 offices for his practice and now seems to only have one.). FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,926 by drook 10/9/13 11:02:10 PM Reply	And frankly ... If the only example you can come up with of someone paying more is someone making >$100k/year then I don't see the problem. -- Drew
Post #381,927 by folkert 10/9/13 11:11:32 PM Reply	And frankly, that is all... Box needs to scream: SEE I TOLD YOU! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,937 by boxley 10/10/13 8:20:58 AM Reply	so the definition of rich is now 100k a year? good to know Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,945 by jake123 10/10/13 9:46:19 AM Reply	Median family income in the US is 50.5K Which is to say that half of all families make less than that. If you are getting 100K/year, you're in the top fifteen percent of all incomes in the US. So yes, actually, it is, Box.
Post #381,946 by boxley 10/10/13 10:32:58 AM Reply	good to know Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,951 by folkert 10/10/13 11:30:32 AM Reply	So, another question... Please see this: http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=381950 -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,936 by boxley 10/10/13 8:20:12 AM Reply	60k a year $6,834 subsidy do you have a link? seems to be a lot of anecdotal quotes that people making $8.25 do not qualify for a subsidy but a couple making $60k do? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,940 by Another Scott 10/10/13 8:32:11 AM Reply	That's what the KFF calculator says. I assume them being 55 or older has something to do with it. The only things that seem to matter are: 1) Age 2) State of residence 3) Smoker? y/n 4) Employer provided insurance available? y/n 5) Kids 6) Income 7) Is your state part of the Medicare expansion? y/n 8) What Metal do you want? That's it. http://kff.org/inter...bsidy-calculator/ I don't know if those numbers are accurate (I assume they are as the content of the law has been known a long time). If not, Healthcare.gov should have them (once the site is over its teething problems). HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,957 by boxley 10/10/13 12:03:20 PM Reply	huh, criteria is wierd, shows zero subsidy 60k 2 people non smoking Results The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid. Household income in 2014: 387% of poverty level Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014: $5,070 Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy: 9.5% Amount you pay for the premium: $5,070 per year (which equals 8.45% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $0 (which covers 0% of the overall premium) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,961 by Another Scott 10/10/13 12:30:46 PM Reply	Depends on your state. Nebraska, 68739, Cedar, 2014 dollars, 60000, No, 2, 60 NS, 55 NS, No kids. results The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid. Household income in 2014:387% of poverty level Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:$10,553 Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:9.5% Amount you pay for the premium:$5,700 per year (which equals 9.5% of your household income and covers 54% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$4,853 (which covers 46% of the overall premium) The details matter, and maybe I mangled some things in trying different options. But the above is what it gave me starting fresh. The subsidy does drop for younger people. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,964 by boxley 10/10/13 12:49:01 PM Reply	Depends on your state., Thats fair and balanced :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,965 by Another Scott 10/10/13 12:50:25 PM Reply	States Rights!!!11 ;-)
Post #381,966 by drook 10/10/13 12:50:55 PM Reply	I thought conservatives liked states' rights? -- Drew
Post #381,968 by boxley 10/10/13 1:04:32 PM Reply	how is that state rights? its a federal subsidy Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,969 by Another Scott 10/10/13 1:12:11 PM Reply	A subsidy that depends on the state policies. http://www.nytimes.c...remiums.html?_r=0 Why does the subsidy vary? Because the private insurance rates vary. The actual out-of-pocket costs are surprisingly uniform. Those are for states with exchanges. For those that don't, the feds will be running an exchange. I don't know the details there yet. (Maybe you do. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,970 by boxley 10/10/13 1:21:39 PM Reply	nope, I work for your neighbor :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,974 by Another Scott 10/10/13 1:49:04 PM Reply	Snazzy. Dunno about the flying top border though ... ;-)
Post #381,977 by boxley 10/10/13 1:58:06 PM Reply	shoot, they changed the front end again? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,934 by CRConrad 10/10/13 7:10:36 AM Reply	Basically, yes. And what's wrong with that? The BOx gibbers on: the wonderful democratic plan called the healthcare act is aimed a gutting the lesser middle class and forcing them to to enjoy the dubious ability to feed themselves as the truly poor while painting us as traitors because we are not going to enjoy getting fucked. Could you try re-writing that sentence into two or three, then maybe it would become parsable? (If it means what I think it might mean, it's laughably wrong; but why argue against that if it isn't perhaps even what you were trying to say.) The rich don't care, they can afford healthcare so the legislation doesn't affect them at all. Duh, Sancta Simplicitas! This is wrong in at least two ways: 1) Then why are the financial backers behind the Republicans still pumping such a lot of dough into campaigns against it? They obviously have some reason, even if you don't know what that is. 2) Of course they care; until now that middle class you mention has got its health insurance from its employers, i.e, the upper class. If the middle class gets an alternative health insurance provider, the upper class won't have the middle class in as much of a grip on the balls as it has until now. It is the people on fixed incomes that watch their monthly premiums go from $338 to $1140. Debunked by others already. (Not just in this thread, by the way, but in others last week, last month, the month before that, and I don't know how often before. Couldn't you try to acquire the decency not to repeat already-debunked "arguments" like a broken bloody record, please? Thank you.) Now if that is the best plan that the American left has to "keep less of my money going to Larry Ellison" then fuck them. Sigh... Again, wrong; this time in at least three ways: 1) No, this is their plan to allow poor and sick people to get some health insurance. That's what this is all about, you know. (The name "Affordable Healthcare Act" might be a clue to anyone who isn't stoked up to the gills on right-wing propaganda.) 2) As per the other #2 above, the less of a grip Larry Ellison has on your balls, the more of a chance you'll have at keeping some of your hard-earned dosh out of his grubby little mitts. 3) Even if it helps absolutely zero in keeping your cash from Larry, at least it doesn't actively give him more of it, which is what any competing scheme he comes up with will inevitably aim for, so it's still better. Ergo: No, (assuming your "them" means the Democrats), it's NOT a case of "fuck them" -- at least not as much as the Republicans. Your only point seems to be "rich people! rich people!" In short, yes. And is there anything wrong with that? No! There are basically two kinds of people in the world: Rich people and poor people (and people who can't count to three, like me). They have fundamentally opposed interests: Rich people are those who own money, real estate, and corporations. It is in their interest that ever more money go to those who already own money, real estate, or corporations. Poor people don't already have a lot of money. It is in their interest that some reasonable share of society's resources also go to those who do not already have a lot. (Yeah, somebody might have come up with this observation before me. That still doesn't make it wrong.) ARE _Y_O_U_ "rich people!"? If not, then why are you so hell-bent on defending _their_ interests, to the clear and present detriment of _your own_ interests? Isn't that just... stupid? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,938 by boxley 10/10/13 8:27:01 AM Reply	gee, I have a coporation a few shekels in the bank to pay next months bills and I own a house (if I can ever get the fucking bank to quit whining about missed payments) So by your definition I am rich? Good to know. If my choices are to side with someone who is actively planning on financially harming me now with the worst scam in american legislative history shy of the teapot dome scandal of the Grant Administration, or siding with people who on their best day do not give a rats ass about me or mine, Sorry I side with the rich party on this one. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,941 by Another Scott 10/10/13 8:37:27 AM Reply	Obamacare is worse than Bush's Iraq War. Good to know...
Post #381,947 by boxley 10/10/13 10:33:46 AM Reply	that was a legislative scam? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,949 by Another Scott 10/10/13 10:40:05 AM Reply	AUMF 2002? PL 107-243?
Post #381,942 by folkert 10/10/13 8:39:42 AM Reply	Wow. So how is the SEC such a deterrent of corruption? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,948 by CRConrad 10/10/13 10:39:00 AM Reply	Oh holy stupidity, please learn to read. Da BOx shows that a remedial reading course wouldn't go amiss: So by your definition I am rich? Good to know. No, that was precisely my point: As far as I know, you are NOT one of the 1% richest, whose interests the Republican Party fights for. And that's why it's so confusing to anyone who sees you arguing about politics, that you not only seem to have swallowed all their talking points hook, line and sinker, but also fight for them with such unbridled tenacity. These are not your own interests you're fighting for, but someone else's; the interests you're fighting for are actually quite diametrically opposed to your own interests. So why are you fighting so vehemently for them? . TL;DR: No, me NOT think you Larry Ellison. Me think Larry Ellison not your friend. So me wonder why you fight so hard for Larry? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,952 by folkert 10/10/13 11:32:59 AM Reply	Oh sheeit... thanks. Now I have to clean this keyboard out. Me think it funny in post. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,955 by boxley 10/10/13 11:58:57 AM Reply	According to Jake I am rich, so why should I side with dems? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,971 by jake123 10/10/13 1:36:39 PM Reply	Here's the thing Bill. Your relative station in life and what you've been able to get going on has been the hallmark not of rich people, but of middle class people. Income disparity has gotten so out of whack in the last couple of decades that now those things are hallmarks of rich people, not middle class people. Furthermore, there's a different issue at hand; the rarefied air people: you know, the rentier class, of which you're definitely not a member. You're rich, but you're not breathing the rarefied air. The fact that you're rich doesn't mean you should argue the interests of those breathing the rarefied air, and furthermore, the fact that since you've succeeded in hanging on to what you've got means that you're now rich rather than middle class is more a condemnation of how the rentiers have grabbed the air of the people who used to be around you (I'm sure there's one or two of your fellow citizens who've been on IWT that you can think of that fall into this category) to further rarefy their air. At this point, their air is so rarefied that they think they exist on a whole 'nother planet and have therefore become quite willing to feudify how they relate to the merely rich like yourself. The fact that it takes being rich to afford this shit (when that wasn't the case thirty years ago) should tell you something is really fucking wrong here, and the "feedom! libreitbarty!" people are the ones that have been running this shit since the election of Reagan.
Post #381,975 by boxley 10/10/13 1:57:30 PM Reply	well I must be rich my cars are paid for 2 at 1985 1 at 1996 Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,980 by folkert 10/10/13 2:15:48 PM Reply	3 Cars? OMG... You are a Zillionaire. I only have 3 cars... one is non-running Van. Ooops make that 4 cars... a 1969 in serious state of tear down. oops and 2 Motorcycles. Gosh... and I just paid off my house. Woooo. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,997 by CRConrad 10/10/13 6:33:44 PM Reply	Naah, you're the increasingly rare middle class. And you're attacking the party that created this class, the Democrats, on behalf of their opponents, the Republicans. It appears you do this in the mistaken belief that it's the Democrats who are destroying the middle class, while it is actually the rich people behind the Republicans who are doing it. HTH! -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #382,005 by boxley 10/10/13 10:04:37 PM Reply	the democrats did not create this class, the unions did Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,009 by CRConrad 10/11/13 1:34:35 AM Reply	And as we all know, they're creatures of the Republicans...?
Post #382,015 by mmoffitt 10/11/13 8:07:33 AM Reply	No, but since Clinton the Democrats have abandoned unions.

Welcome to IWETHEY!