Haaahahaha! You funny. What's the matter did I offend your NAMBLA feelings?

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

It's already subsidized, and more so because of SPECULATION that is insane.

There's no shortage of oil right now. OPEC isn't reducing production. Saudi Arabia isn't in a war zone.

Sweet crude shouldn't be more than $60/barrel based on REAL market value

Any of the hike in prices is pure speculation from the same greedy bastards that helped brought the sub-prime mess.

Can't stand paper and this new banking BS. Time and time and time again it shows the markets aren't reliable, and how the banking has changed for the worst. Easy money. Yeah, easy to lose everything (and I'm not talking personal investments, either).

God, I wish I could stoleaway on a NASA probe out of here. World is going to pot faster than the Sun could swallow it.

__________________

You are right about that chris the big problem with oil right now is the weak US dollar. The US dollar is weak because the Fed keeps pushing rates lower and lower to try to jazz up this economy that has slowed to a craw. What they should have done was cut taxes in 2006 but we couldn't do that because of the retarded democrats in congress.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

I know what you mean I'm thinking about selling my trucking company and all my investments and moving to Japan to teach english. My lady friend doesn't know that I'm thinking about that. She'd have a cow.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

WOW, you are in such denial....its really funny watching you loose it.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

You mean the Bush Republicans should have increased taxes on the future generations of US workers even more than they already had?

One of the looming problems are the Reagan tax increases on future generations. The boomers whose FICA taxes Reagan used to increase the size of government are beginning to retire, which means that the generation born during Reagan's term need to pick of the boomer's tax burden, plus pick up the burden of Reagan's unfunded bribes to the boomers when they retire.

How about LBJ's "Great Society" programs? We could start by getting rid of these unsuccessful, wasteful programs. How come no one on the left ever talks about LBJ's failures?

Didn't you hear me? Shut the fuck up until you have something valid or constructive concerning your argument.

Here's an idea for the social security short fall caused by Reagan and Bush's dipping into SS to fund their tax breaks for the wealthy in 80's and 90's:

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap
Using relatively pessimistic assumptions about future growth in productivity and immigration, the Social Security Administration (SSA) actuaries estimate that Social Security trust fund revenues will fall somewhat short of covering scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. Until recently, President Bush had signaled opposition to any revenue increase to close that shortfall. On February 16, however, President Bush indicated his willingness to consider raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. SSA actuarial estimates show that eliminating the cap would virtually eliminate the projected 75-year funding shortfall.

This shortfall is less severe than is often presented by proponents of Social Security privatization. SSA's projections show that a 1.9 percentage-point increase in the existing payroll tax dedicated to Social Security would close the projected funding gap over a 75-year period. Using slightly less pessimistic economic assumptions about the next 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the gap could be closed over the next 75 years with just a 1.0 percentage-point increase.

Currently, all earnings up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4% to fund Social Security. Each dollar earned over and above this cap is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

This cap affects benefits as well: calculation of Social Security benefits are based on a formula that does not take earnings over the cap into account. Since higher income during one's working life translates into higher Social Security benefits, removing the cap on the benefit side would increase Social Security payments to high-wage earners.

The figure below shows the current actuarial shortfall faced by Social Security under both the SSA and CBO estimates, and the effects of removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits, based on a 2005 memo by the Office of the Actuary for the SSA. Removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits improves the 75-year actuarial balance by 1.7% of payroll, thereby eliminating 90% of the funding deficit forecast by the SSA. Removing the cap would completely eliminate the deficit forecast by the CBO with its more plausible economic assumptions.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.