Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

"Would I be so arrogant to tell you about
kangaroos? "

I bet he has trouble getting a date with them.

"This is the pig I fuck when I am not with you"
"That's not a pig you idiot, it's a kangaroo"
"I was talking to the kangaroo"

Just a minor adaptation, see ?

 

>"> The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans"

First of all that is bullshit. Can't listen to him.

Quick Google shows;

"The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans."

That's from a result, but anyone can easily check it. Even though democrats did control congress they opposed the CRA for the most part - 74%.

So JFK signed it, he was a republican at heart until that became a liability. But the fact is that he would have never even seen it to sign if not for the republican vote.

Another thing that people seem 6to forget is that democrats wee the party of slaves and were the impetus for our civil war. They were most of the slave owners and wanted to keep their property.

You know the way they lip service minorities now is another way of retaining ownership. No fucking jobs so you need government help, then when you do they assume you will vote for them because they promise you more.

>"Sadly, many of the criminal bent minded folks know very well how to 'play' on society and 'whitey' any time they wish as civil societies are trusting and we must pay for what our ancestors did, and what a bunch of assholes supremacists are still doing. So some of them lower themselves to that level and kind folks get hurt on both sides. "

And democrats facilitate that. They do it for votes.

I have no great love for republicans but we are at which no democrat can be trusted. Sorry. We have one alternative.

But with things like affirmative action, which one prominent Black congress critter is against, at least, make the recipients weak. If you have to carry 100 pounds at work and someone else only has to carry 50 then who is the stronger ?

>"And population densities and a few other factors weigh into this and the error in the old stats as well. "

For one, yes, population densities are very much at the heart of the matter.. And who lived in the ghettos ? Who had five kids in a two bedroom apartment, feeding them on welfare ? And who didn't force them to at least have a Norplant at the first or second kid - or abortion ?

You are obviously against republicans, but you fail to see just how bad the democrats really are. The republicans are far from good, but the democrats are farther. you let them take power and you'll see. You will be back here with "Damn, if I had only known".

Hopefully that doesn't happen.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 12:48:50 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from
low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their
own private, segregated wealthy-people schools

Cite? Or is that just your personal opinion?

Dan

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 5:30 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 4/28/19 5:24 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money
from low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have
their own private, segregated wealthy-people schools"

If I had kids I would do ANYTHING to get them a good education even if
I had to do it myself. And that would take some doing. Go ahead and
home school, just know what you're doing. Of course some assholes used
it to cover child abuse but what you gonna do ? I'd shoot them and
take their kids, but that's just me. You hurt a kid around me and I
will SHOW YOU what revenge really is.

How do you know they're getting a "good education" when there's such a
large profit-based incentive to tell you what you want to hear? A+. A+.
A+. Yes mr. jurb he's a wonderful student. that will be $5000.

Wingnuts is gullible. They make easy pickings...

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 5:24 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their own private, segregated wealthy-people schools"

If I had kids I would do ANYTHING to get them a good education even if I had to do it myself. And that would take some doing. Go ahead and home school, just know what you're doing. Of course some assholes used it to cover child abuse but what you gonna do ? I'd shoot them and take their kids, but that's just me. You hurt a kid around me and I will SHOW YOU what revenge really is.

How do you know they're getting a "good education" when there's such a
large profit-based incentive to tell you what you want to hear? A+. A+.
A+. Yes mr. jurb he's a wonderful student. that will be $5000.

But there was a time when there were almost no schools. Yet people learned. In the REALLY old days kids got the basics at home and then went on to seek an apprenticeship.

There is nothing wrong with using your wealth for the betterment of your kids. If that changes let me know.

There's no shortage of Daddy's-boys in the world. Lookin' good in their
Daddy's car, on their Daddy's dime. They tend to be republicans

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 5:22 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 4/28/19 3:53 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 12:48:50 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from
low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their
own private, segregated wealthy-people schools

  Cite?   Or is that just your personal opinion?

                              Dan


Best real-world example to examine is probably Sweden where they've had
a Milton Friedman-based charter school system since the 1990s which,
naturally depending on whom you ask, is regarded as a failure. they made
some alterations from a strict Friedman implementation though in that
schools weren't allowed to screen their applicants on the usual things
like race. AFAIK they could kick out whomever they wanted on the grounds
of non-performance though.

Market theory provides some options; parents value good grades, so you
can hire great teachers and provide great environment and...or because
grading is often subjective you can just grade easy, kick out the really
poor performers and make average students "exceptional" by fiat. which
do you think the schools tended to picked? Sure it's done in public
schools too but in a charter school the profit-based incentives to just
take the path of least resistance are much higher.

That is to say if free-market theory has some substance to it, which I
finally would not deny that it does, the market-efficient solution to
providing the desired product called "good grades" is obvious here yeah?
just give good grades! And teach to the test, and nothing but. Or am I
misunderstanding the market theory.

 

>"the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their own private, segregated wealthy-people schools "

If I had kids I would do ANYTHING to get them a good education even if I had to do it myself. And that would take some doing. Go ahead and home school, just know what you're doing. Of course some assholes used it to cover child abuse but what you gonna do ? I'd shoot them and take their kids, but that's just me. You hurt a kid around me and I will SHOW YOU what revenge really is.

But there was a time when there were almost no schools. Yet people learned. In the REALLY old days kids got the basics at home and then went on to seek an apprenticeship.

There is nothing wrong with using your wealth for the betterment of your kids. If that changes let me know.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 3:53 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 12:48:50 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from
low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their
own private, segregated wealthy-people schools

Cite? Or is that just your personal opinion?

Dan

Best real-world example to examine is probably Sweden where they've had
a Milton Friedman-based charter school system since the 1990s which,
naturally depending on whom you ask, is regarded as a failure. they made
some alterations from a strict Friedman implementation though in that
schools weren't allowed to screen their applicants on the usual things
like race. AFAIK they could kick out whomever they wanted on the grounds
of non-performance though.

Market theory provides some options; parents value good grades, so you
can hire great teachers and provide great environment and...or because
grading is often subjective you can just grade easy, kick out the really
poor performers and make average students "exceptional" by fiat. which
do you think the schools tended to picked? Sure it's done in public
schools too but in a charter school the profit-based incentives to just
take the path of least resistance are much higher.

And also in part my personal opinion in that the Americans who want
charter schools the most are at some level aware of all this and that's
precisely the situation they prefer; an easy-street education for their
kids in a racially homogeneous environment where money talks for _them_,
on someone _else's_ dime.

and then if you need Ivy League for 'em just get together 50 grand to
pay the admissions people there. The Hollywood-people who got caught
doing it were just the ones who got caught.

It doesn't mean I'm so wonderfully happy with the public school system
as it is. In the worst case and the worst places public schools are
often a place where the kids who are destined for college are sorted
from the kids who are destined for the correctional system and who your
parents are and what color they are is also the deciding factor pretty
much.

but this "charter-school" business is its own racket it's just socialism
for the "don't you know who my Dad is!!!!" Daddy's-boys-and-girls of a
type which are way too common already.

 

>"That's a lie. Most of the elderly on on SS, not welfare. "

He won't understand that. It is EARNING it, not just getting it. Socialists aren't concerned with earning.

 

>"And what morons like Sloman don't like to be reminded of is that the KKK was founded by and its ideals propagated by his precious Democratic Party. "

And that David Duke who was the Grand Master or whatever for a time was a democrat.

 

>"The sadness of the US blacks is due to the welfare state and the black community. As soon as they start taking responsibility and address their own problems, instead of trying to blame whitie, the sooner they will get somewhere. "

That doesn't fit with modern liberalism. They need to be "victims". Know what else ? They need to assess just where the fuck they would be in bumfuct Africa somewhere living on what's left of $19 a month handouts from stupid people who give money to charities that spend more on advertising than Chevrolet.

"I suppose next you'll be telling us we should pay
reparations to blacks today, when none of us were alive hundreds of years ago or had anything to do with slavery. "

He will, supposedly we benefited from all the ships and bridges they designed and built. Like the cars, color TVs, Xray machines, lunar landing modules, nuclear power and bombs.

What about the land they stole ? And what about the immigrants we are racist not to take in with open arms so they can rape our Women and kill our Men whom they put them on an island ? We put prisons on islands if they have no other use... (or at least did) Hypocrite much ?

I responded to you because I don't to him anymore. (and you said something) I got tired of grinding his neck into the railroad tracks because he just doesn't seem to care. His liberal brainwashing is too strong.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/28/19 5:04 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"And what morons like Sloman don't like to be reminded of is that the KKK was founded by and its ideals propagated by his precious Democratic Party."

And that David Duke who was the Grand Master or whatever for a time was a democrat.

I'm always surprised how many old-timers here, even, admit they were
Communists in the 60s and 70s.

Really? a real communist like with red-book and all? Wow. you don't say.

 

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 13:45:52 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/21/19 10:16 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:37:36 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill
taxpayers and even the libs know it.

'kill taxpayers'?

I am ashamed of some folks. You made the list. I am a republican.
You are a piece of shit. You do not represent my party. The proof is
in your inane, inept devisivness.

That's a new one, even for you. It's an expression. And if you think
that Republicans don't think that the high taxes from all the new
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers, then
I'd say you're the one who doesn't even know what Republicans stand for.


The "mainstream right" stands for spend, spend, spend

And *ALL* of the left lies.

 

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 13:26:35 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"> The US Democratic Party were more sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement than the Republicans"

First of all that is bullshit. Can't listen to him.

Quick Google shows;

"The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans."

That's from a result, but anyone can easily check it. Even though democrats did control congress they opposed the CRA for the most part - 74%.

So JFK signed it, he was a republican at heart until that became a liability. But the fact is that he would have never even seen it to sign if not for the republican vote.

Another thing that people seem 6to forget is that democrats wee the party of slaves and were the impetus for our civil war. They were most of the slave owners and wanted to keep their property.

Don't have to go back that far. The Democrats were the party of the
KKK, right down to their leadership. Senator Robert Byrd wasn't
called "Sheets Byrd" for nothing.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics>

 

[bitrex]

On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.  The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it.  The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd.   Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea.  It was as fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.


  The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
 I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
 In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.

 Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                  Mikek

The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.

Fuck You

Got Mine

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 3:29:52 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 10:01:00 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You mean the part where I set you straight.

You'll *never* set him straight. The bloke is a total moron and deeply
committed to remaining so.

Cursitor Doom thinks that anybody who doesn't share his simple-minded and largely incorrect worldview is a "total moron". He doesn't know enough about actual morons to realise that they can't manage deep commitment.

Cursitor Doom has yet to realise that it's his approval that rational people fear.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 3:01:05 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:28:15 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 6:26:24 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 10:45:08 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 9:56:43 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 12:34:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 3:00:11 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:27:34 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

The Civil Rights Movement managed to undo some of the legal barriers to blacks getting jobs, but the social barriers can't be legislated out of existence.

Yeah, the problem is always with whitey, never with the blacks and
personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility doesn't get you a job if potential employers look at you and decides that you are black and that they doesn't want to hire you.

Personal responsibility gets you educated and employed.

It may get you educated, but being black in the US tends to mean that you have to work harder yto get the same leve3lof education as an equally talented white kid.

Getting employed depends on other peoples decisions

As it always has, for all races. Again, who's the racist? You're implying
that most US employers are racist, when they are not. How the hell did OBama
get elected twice, in this white racist country?





Irresponsibility
and listening to the race baiters and libs like you who blame whitey,
leaves you uneducated, no skills, barefoot, pregnant and on welfare.

BTW, unemployment is at 3%, fool. Capitalists are eager to make a buck,
they will hire anyone who can do the job.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

says 3.8%. It also says "The labor force participation rate fell 0.2 percentage points to 63.0 percent and has shown little movement on net over the past 12 months" so there are quite a few people who aren't working and don't count as unemployed.

Largely irrelevant of course. And who the hell cares abou the last 12 months
when we're talking about 50+ years? The facts are that the unemployment rate
is at historic LOWS. If you lived here instead of Australia, you'd see the
many help wanted signs in the window.





Employers may be currently willing to hire anybody they think can do the job, but they like the people they hire to look like everybody else who has been doing the job for years.


And there you have it folks! The bozo that accuses me of being racist,
just made a broad and very untrue characterization of all US employers,
You don't even live here, how the fuck would you know? Also, it's very
peculiar that these racist employers are not racist againt Latinos.
They've hired them by the BOATLOAD over the last couple of decades.
Look in any kitchen or bar, it's full of Latinos, many who just walked
into the US recently. Now, why would they employ them, if they are
so racist?






Funny how Asians can come here from Vietnam,
with $20 and in a few years, they are making decent money, in a generation
their kids are in college.

They weren't brought into country as slaves and badly educated in separate and rather less than equal schools for generations.

That ended 50 years ago.

It stopped being legal in 1954 (which is 65 years ago) but it is still prevalent.

BS. It's illegal and what you're bitching about now, is that in areas
that are mostly black, well, the schools are mostly black. Again, who's
the racist? I say let the chips fall where they may. You see that and
start making assumptions based on RACE. And in those areas where the schools
are bad, the GOP has long been in favor of school vouchers, so that any
family can send their kid to any school of their choose, using the voucher.
And how about this? If the blacks in the bad neighborhoods cooperated with
the police, installed neighborhood watch groups, didn't have kids they can't
afford, denounced gangster rap music, told their community that they own
their own problems, then improvement could come quickly. Instead they mostly
listen to libs like you, that tell them they are all victims and it's
whitey's fault.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States

And they were getting better educations before that
than they are now.

Ask any reactionary idiot and they all agree on that.

First generation immigrants are enterprising people - they wouldn't be immigrants otherwise - and they tend to do well.

So, maybe it's time for blacks to take ownership, pull up their pants,
fly right, and pull themselves up by their collective boot straps?
No, let's just have another welfare program and blame whitey.

Welfare programs outside of the US do seem to work. The US has a unique capacity for spending money on welfare in a way that doesn't seem to do much for the people who are supposed to be being helped.

Of course US primary and secondary schools are organised and paid for by school districts, which are small, and of distinctly variable prosperity.

The US state average spending per head varies by a factor of three, from a bit over $6000 per head per year in the worst states to about $20,000 per head per year in the richest states. There are lots of school districts within each state.

There is little correlation between money into a school system and results.
Here in the Peoples Republic of NJ, thirty years ago, a bunch of libs on
the SC decided to make new law and they decreed that money had to be taken
from the wealthier communities and given to the communities that were poor,
mostly black. Well, we've been doing that for 30 years, those schools now
have MORE money than even some of the best, wealthier areas schools. And
guess what? The kids are still coming out just as dumb as before.




But heh, it can't be because of the culture,
the excuses, the lack of personal responsibility in the black community.

Culture isn't actually controlled by skin colour.

BS. A whole lot of it obviously is.



Areas of the US white community have also been known to be pretty badly behaved.

It must be because of "social barriers".

They don't help.

Which you happen to be too stupid to recognise.

Because it's mostly a lie. And WTF do you know? You're pontificating
about things you know little about, sitting in Australia. It would be
like me lecturing you about kangaroos, which I would never do.

Of course not. The right-wing nitwits that you seem to be cutting and pasting

Show us where I've "cut and pasted". That's another one of your lies.




don't care about kangaroos, so you haven't got any handy piles of nonsense to post about them.

gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their
pants down around their knees, butts showing.

You may see this on TV shows out to attract racist white attention, but treating these exhibitionists as representative of the entire black community is a trifle stupid, even for you.

I never said it's the entire black community.

Actually, you did.

That's a lie, you're the one that said that.

What you posted was

" the black community went
totally the other way. Now we have inner cities in decay, high black
unemployment, gangs, gangster rap where they celebrate calling women
bitches and hoes, call each other nigger, and run around with their pants
down around their knees, butts showing. "

"The black community went totally" means that the whole black community went that way. If you had intended to say something about a part of the black community going in for these antics, you'd have had to have used a different form of words.

You really are a total moron.

No, you have the lock on that pal.

Dream on.

> And reading comprehension problems too.

I seem to be able to understand the meaning of what I've written,which is something you can't manage.

The black community going totally the wrong way, is not the same thing as
saying the total black community went the wrong way. And you're very
selective, here I said essentially the same thing, where I used the word
"much".

So you can't keep your message the same from one paragraph to the next.

"And it's not just the increase in out-of-wedlock births, it's the total
degeneration of much of the black community. They went from having intact
families and jobs, to out-of-wedlock births, high unemployment, crime,
gangs, gangster rap where they call women bitches and hoes,
running around calling each other nigger. and pants
hanging around their knees with their asses showing."

Happy now? No, of course not.

You want to decide which bits of your incoherent ramblings constitute your "actual" message after you get called on the even sillier bits. It doesn't work that way - the whole message labels you as a half-wit and cherry picking the marginally more defensible bits doesn't get you off the hook.

snipped the rest of the moronic misapprehensions

You mean the part where I set you straight.

The part where your capacity for self-delusion might have let you think that you were "setting me straight". Your intellectual force isn't quite up to that job, and it gets exerted in a lot of different directions, almost all of them wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:48:45 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/28/19 8:50 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

demonstrates that black students still aren't reading as well as their white counterparts. If the US education system isn't teaching them to read as well as it might, it's a trifle difficult for them compete on equal terms.

90% of the problem is in the home. When you pay people to have single mother
families, pay them to have more kids, have people like you telling them that
the US is racist, that they can't succeed on their own, when you have black
rappers spewing out their crap, race hustlers telling them it's whitey's
fault, that's what you get. Oh, and the GOP is in favor of school vouchers,
where everyone gets a voucher, good for X dollars, to send their kid to the
school of their CHOICE. Instead of private schools being only for the wealthy,
poor people would have a choice too. Who's against it? Why the Democrats,
of course. Because they are in the pocket of the teacher's union.

the purpose of a school voucher system is primarily to take money from
low-income taxpayers and give it to the wealthy so they can have their
own private, segregated wealthy-people schools

More lies from the lefty, of course.

 

>"How do you know they're getting a "good education" when there's such a large profit-based incentive to tell you what you want to hear? A+. A+. A+. Yes mr. jurb he's a wonderful student. that will be $5000. ""

You think I'm that stupid ? You think I would not be involved ? I didn't survive this long throwing money away, and I am starting to think college is mostly a waste. Look at the list of courses, Black studies, Women studies, art history, NONE of this should be available on the public dime. Neither should have Trump U. As much as they were maligned, they did nothing that any other college would do. The REASON I think Trump U should be paid for totally privately is because it is not teaching for any actual job, it is telling kids dumbed down in primary school that when they walk into a bank with zero experience, no job or visible means of support, a ton of student debt they will get quick million buck loan for a "cute" apartment building.

>"There's no shortage of Daddy's-boys in the world. Lookin' good in their Daddy's car, on their Daddy's dime. They tend to be republicans "

Is that talking out your ass or you got some sort of reference for that ?

 

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:59:05 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/22/19 9:24 PM, amdx wrote:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS.  The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it.  The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd.   Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea.  It was as fraudulent
and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.


  The problem with Obamacare was after the Obamacare regulations went
into effect, my families private healthcare plan had increases of 18.2%,
19.4% and 24% the following 3 years. We had a 67% increase in 2 years 3
months. Thanks Obama, what happened to my $2,500 reduction you promised?
 I prefer a high deductible, I think it lowers overall costs.
 In 09 i raised my deductible from $2,500 to $10,000 and lowered my
premium from $9,900 to $4,300. Then I opened a tax deductible HSA that I
now have about $48,000 in.

 Another problem, as I see it, the FIRE community (Financially
Independent Retire Early) loves it. They retire with about $1,000,000
(or more) live frugally on about $40,000 a year and get a full
healthcare subsidy, even though they are millionaires.
I don't think that is what was envisioned with the legislation.
                                  Mikek


The boomerz all want less from the government. once they took it and
society at large for all it was good for back in the 60s and 70s.

More lies from the lefty.

>Fuck You

You're *NOT* my type.

>Got Mine

You didn't do that!