Re: How Does the New Health Care Reform Bill Affect Your Business ???

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>> I don't think privatizing [Social Security] is the best way to go with
>> a 'safety net.'  We could end up needing a safety net for the safety net.
>
> Absolutely.  The Bush trap was just another attempt divert trillions of
> dollars to the same sleazy bastards who destroyed the US economy under
> his watchful, jaundiced eye.
>
>> IMHO, the way to fix it would be to forbid any use of the funds for
>> anything other than benefit payments, increase the cap on
>> contributions (heh - 'contributions' my ass, it's a tax) and means
>> test benefits.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Instead, all we hear about is raising the qualifying age.  What a
>> friggin load of crap that is...
>
> For me it's irrelavent.  I won't make it to the qualifying age even if
> they leave it alone.  But if my wife does the smart thing she can
> receive benefits based on my contribution... er, taxes.
>
>> Nah - they are going to continue down the same old path of screwing
>> the middle class and making laws that benefit their rich cronies.
>
> Not the Dems.  That's the Repugnant party thing.  We are much more
> fair.  We screw everyone.  :^)
>

LOL

But I have to disagree with the idea that there is any real difference
in the parties.  The federal government grows regardless of which party
is in power.

IMHO, both parties are the same side of a coin, of which the
constitution is the other side.

That's why they rail so hard against people voting third party.  They
have everyone convinced that doing so is throwing away their vote, so
millions of people, who are disenchanted with both parties, vote for the
party that disgusts them the least instead of voting their conscience.

Granted, I wouldn't want 30 or 40 parties but a good federalist leaning
party would likely go a long way in cleaning the federal government's
intrusions on state's rights.