I'm available for hire as always: Stewart [at] EngineFood.com

Contextual Backlinks, Press Releases, Site Text, SEO work, Consulting, Tubes, Social Media, Certifications and more. I'm on 7 days a week operating my own network of sites and have plenty of very happy clients willing to provide references. So, get me on ICQ# 266-942-896 any time and send me a link when you post something new or interesting :winkwink:

she'll send you weekly nudes of herself for $20 a week Paypal... :thumbsup






.

ahahahahah

Sly page 6 yet? Please tell us what is converting for you!

ahhh, nothing.
thats what I thought. welcome, troll.

She is over charging you. She just sent me flowers as thanks for looking at her pictures weekly.

Tony, that's my complaint: WHY does going to the doctor suddenly cost so much in the United States? And WHY do we pay so much more for the same exact prescription medication from the exact same companies in the U.S.?

When I was a kid, it didn't take insurance to be sick. You went to the doctor, or hospital and paid your bill. Even when I grew up it was still that way.

For instance: When I was in my mid-20's I was living in Ft. Lauderdale playing in my band. I made around $500 a week (great money in 1986 for a musician). My stepson had his appendix rupture and had to be rushed to the hospital. He was in for 3 days. I don't remember the exact bill...but I do remember that my wife (who was a bartender on the strip in Lauderdale at the time) and I were able to scrape together the money to pay the entire bill. We had no health insurance. And nobody we knew had any either (granted we were young)

Fast forward to 2010: Claudia had her appendix do the same thing. It cost almost $30,000 by the time all the bills rolled in! Unbelievable!

Then you can do a quick search for medical tourism...people are traveling to India and Costa Rica and Tijuana because the exact same procedures are 10 times cheaper!

Whatever is causing this...needs to be figured out and fixed.

Instead the answer always seems to be tax us more (or in the case of health, FORCE everyone to buy more insurance).

Also...in the interest of honest talk.
Here is the exact definition of "Ponzi Scheme". The same thing that has gotten many people put in prison:
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases."

So I think that when people say "ponzi scheme" about Social Security, they are trying to say that it's set up where the people paying in NOW are paying for the people already getting the money. And there is no bank account with the money that you and I are paying in right now that is being untouched and gathering interest for our retirement.
And as more and more people are collecting Social Security (as people live longer) and less and less are putting money in...the whole thing is going to collapse.
The illegality of the Ponzi Scheme is that people investing right now will never see their return on their money. And that is where the Social Security system is heading as well. It's gonna go bankrupt and we won't see the money we put in.

I personally feel it's total b.s. for the govt. to force that on people as well. If I had my choice I would opt out of that so fast it would make your head spin. But they won't allow it.
Why?
"Well Robbie, because then people would just blow their money and have nothing at the end and the state would have to pay for them"
No.
That may be true but that's not WHY the govt. forces everyone to stay in.
They force us because WE are paying for people getting money NOW.

And without us paying in right NOW, the whole system collapses because it has none of the money that was paid in by the people collecting it now.

Thus, the "ponzi scheme" comment.
Only usually a "ponzi scheme" is something that people get tricked into. This one we are forced into by law.

Whats a "day job", Toby? :1orglaugh Like roofing or something?
Does every "successful" businessmen in your area quit their "successful" businesses and go into building free sites and selling clicks to Russians? :1orglaugh

you have great points but before SS . For most old age was a poverty sentence. Also many dont make enough to save for old age. The avg income in this country is $50k. That's not a ton of money and lots are lucky to make 30k.
Now you can say fuck them,they should of did better. My answer is someone has to do the shit jobs.

I borrow this from another thread, its a quote from Elizabeth Warren
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

My day job keeps me on the road and in the air an awful lot of the time.

So what is your solution? How do we keep a program like Social Security paying out more than it takes in? People live much longer now.

Wouldn't you agree that the age of getting your Social Security should be upped? Maybe 70 years old before you collect? I'm not sure even that is gonna save it.

The real problem is this: Politicians can say words. But words aren't reality. And in the end if SOMETHING isn't done about it, there will not BE any money to pay Social Security. And it doesn't matter how many "rich" people get their taxes raised. From what I read you could tax every millionaire in the country at 100% and it won't even make a dent in the out of control spending deficit we are in.

And has the govt. even slowed down spending? You know like you or I would do in real life?
Nope. Not even by a penny. We're still running military crap all over the world like there is no problem. And politicians are still sending billions home to their cronies right now as I'm typing this.

They aren't gonna "sacrifice" even one bit. It's not their money anyway. They will still get paid and still keep on stealing.
The only people who they want to "sacrifice" are the people with drive, ambition, and talent who are making money.

Trust me Tony...those politicians don't give a DAMN about you or me or anybody but themselves. All they want is to get their hands on that money. And by making false promises to senior citizens, they get those votes. And by taxing the "rich" they get the votes of everybody who ISN'T "rich".

It's all about money and power in my humble opinion.

And back to the original thread:

If Warren Buffet wants to pay MORE taxes...then why is he over ONE BILLION dollars behind on his back taxes? I'm sure that the govt. would be happy if he would just pay that.

The Kennedy's got rich from BREAKING the law and running liquor.

The Hearsts made their wealth in the 1800's. Before income taxes and before federal highways (that were created by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950's to be able to move tanks and heavy military machinery quickly throughout the country)

Point is that ALL people who were rich in the early days up until the beginning of the 1900's got that way in our country despite the govt. and not because of it.

Police and firemen are paid by city govt. which gets it's money from people actually paying taxes in the city (mostly homeowners). Poor people don't pay an awful lot of that. They don't have any money.

I think those arguments about all the "wonderful" things the govt. does to make our lives so much better do have merit. But put all the highway work, police depts. and fire depts all in a big pile...and there's no way in hell it costs TRILLIONS of dollars that the federal govt. spends like drunken sailors.

I can't believe you can't see that. If all we had to pay for was our countries highways, etc and essential services, we could drop the tax rate to almost nothing.

But they are occupying over 200 countries with our military. And the pentagon is wanting to spend more and more on big weapons systems that are pretty much useless against "terrorism" (whatever that is). And the congress is ALWAYS in session making new laws and spending trillions of dollars on shit that is NOT highways, policemen, or firemen, or infrastructure.

I'm 100% for pulling out of the wars and closing all oversea bases and killing most aid to other Countries. It's gotten crazy ass out of hand.

With Hearst, he made his money after the Civil War... I bet he used the new railway system and the pony express and enjoyed keeping his scalp on his travels :) We also had Tariffs, some of the highest after the war and he would have had to deal with the first income tax as well. He was mayor of NY in the early 1900's, we had roads, city taxes, etc...

For about a 100 years our Country survived on old wealth, once we started to move West and our Gov started to kill off the Indians for us, we "found" some new wealth up in them there mountains and all the rest is history after that.

As opposed to DEBT & SPEND of the republicans? Reagan exploded the national debt, George W Bush added 7 trillion or so.

You think Bush spending billions while cutting taxes on the rich was a success? You think the economy was better after the removal of financial sector regulation and years of Bush running up debt?

It's just conventional economic theory to stimulate the economy as both Bush and Obama did/are. However the USA is in such a deep hole with the manufacturing sector collapsing and a huge amount of long term unemployed that stimulus won't cut it.

It's just the slow and gradual collapse of an empire that got into too many wars, let corporations shift jobs overseas while taking profits in the USA and removed too many regulations and let the financial sector's greed run rampant.

Americans will have to accept a lower standard of living and for the first time in many years thanks to the greed of mostly baby boomers, the next generation will be worse off financially. Many will just have to accept a huge house and bling isn't necessary for a happy life.

They are a ponzi scheme plain and simple. People pay money into a system their entire lives and meanwhile the funds get used for another purpose. Politicians get away with it. But they have been taking money out of medicare and social security since it started, using it as their own slush fund.

This is his bio, and I think it disproves that academic quote that implied "Nobody in this country ever got rich" without the governments "help" or because of what the federal govt. did. Hearst and many other of the richest people in the country did just that. There was no strong federal govt. then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hearst