- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,938
- Reaction score
- 8,394
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
anomaly said:First, read Pacridge's post. How 'bout Bush lying about the WMDs? The Iraq 9/11 connection? The SS 'going bakrupt in 2042' (his current lie)? during his campaign he said he will not make and amendment against gay marriage and is now pursuing one? These are lies, plain and simple.
First of all, you are naive to think that Bush lied when he had all the evidence (from ours and the WORLDS intelligence) to believe that Sadam had weapons. I don't hear you calling France a liar ... they voted for the resolution too. Bush acted on it when Germany and France would not. Goes to show the integrity of the governments of both of them - does it not?
Of course you will ignor this as you seem to do on many "facts" that do not fall in your favor. Here is a little more meat to add to the flame.
Source
If Social Security is not changed, payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or massive transfers from general revenues will be required. Social Security's Chief Actuary states, "If benefits were reduced to meet the shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of the Trust Fund in 2042 and would rise to 32 percent for 2078. Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning in 2042, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 3.1 percentage points (from 12.4 percent under current law to about 15.5 percent) would be needed for the year. The additional revenue needed for 2043 would be equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percentage points for the year. Thereafter, the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll tax rate of about 5.9 percentage points for 2078 (or about 50 percent higher than today's rate).
As far as Gay marriage, he said before that it should be left up to the states. But, that was WELL before Mass and the states justices re-wrote the law. But alas, I will choose to be as closed minded as you - I don't care if he was for or against it before. Thank heaven above he is for an amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman now.