Start saving, you owe $534,000

[Banned]

Where did I use the words "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

Those articles that I linked were not mine. I linked them because they were not mine. If those calculations were mine, I would not have had to link the source.

The Michigan article was one example showing how desperate the situation is in Michigan concerning unfunded state worker pensions. If Michigan alone has a $4 Trillion unfunded problem, how much is the total for all the states?

Nationally there is the problems with promises made with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There are also the problems with unfunded federal pension liabilities. And every state has unfunded pension liabilities. Will the states ask the Federal government to bail them out when they each need trillions to pay out future pensions?

Maybe we should rethink all levels of government making promises which they will not be able to keep.

[songsmith]

Where did I use the words "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

Okay then, how do you "sort of" know this is what we will pay, and how do you "kind of" know how the economy will play out during that time period?
Nail it down for me.

[Banned]

Where did I use the words "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

Okay then, how do you "sort of" know this is what we will pay, and how do you "kind of" know how the economy will play out during that time period?
Nail it down for me.

I don't know the sun will come up tomorrow. These are articles pointing out the future debt, based on the way government spending, and government promises are being made today.

Do you accept that the current national debt is $14.4 Trillion? Well, these articles are looking into the future when millions of people will be retiring and needing Medicare, Social Security and various promised pensions. The money is not there now for these promises, and it will get much worse when the number of retirees vastly increase with the aging of the American population.

The USA Today is one of the sources, not a very conservative newspaper.

[Banned]

Here is an article that answers a lot of your questions.

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/econo ... ault&page=

[songsmith]

Here is an article that answers a lot of your questions.

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/econo ... ault&page=

Here's the site home URL for that site:
http://thenewamerican.com

Here are a few headlines:
Fred Koch: Oil Man Against Communism
Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations
Going Green May Be Unhealthy Says Report
"Primetime Propaganda" Interview Clips Confirm Hollywood's Liberal Bias
Homosexual Activists Recruiting Kids Into Lifestyle of Risky Behavior


The pattern we've seen recently, posting blogs and partisan websites as fact, seems to point to an inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. This inability is called "modern conservatism."

[Banned]

Here is an article that answers a lot of your questions.

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/econo ... ault&page=

Here's the site home URL for that site:
http://thenewamerican.com

Here are a few headlines:
Fred Koch: Oil Man Against Communism
Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations
Going Green May Be Unhealthy Says Report
"Primetime Propaganda" Interview Clips Confirm Hollywood's Liberal Bias
Homosexual Activists Recruiting Kids Into Lifestyle of Risky Behavior


The pattern we've seen recently, posting blogs and partisan websites as fact, seems to point to an inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. This inability is called "modern conservatism."

The article that I posted is based upon facts from the USA Today paper article. The USA Today is not a conservative partisan website, it actually leans clearly left.

Please point out the mistakes in the article, point out the facts that the USA Today got wrong.

So please point out to us, please educate us, which facts in the USA Today article are incorrect.

[songsmith]

The article that I posted is based upon facts from the USA Today paper article. The USA Today is not a conservative partisan website, it actually leans clearly left.

If your "facts" were based on a USA Today article, why didn't you just post those "facts," instead of linking yet another right-wing website?
Also, prove that USA Today leans left, without using a right-wing source. I say they lean right. Prove me wrong.

[f.sciarrillo]

The article that I posted is based upon facts from the USA Today paper article. The USA Today is not a conservative partisan website, it actually leans clearly left.

If your "facts" were based on a USA Today article, why didn't you just post those "facts," instead of linking yet another right-wing website?
Also, prove that USA Today leans left, without using a right-wing source. I say they lean right. Prove me wrong.

Name a site that you don't think is a right wing website. And make sure that it isn't a left wing site as well. lol

[Banned]

The article that I posted is based upon facts from the USA Today paper article. The USA Today is not a conservative partisan website, it actually leans clearly left.

If your "facts" were based on a USA Today article, why didn't you just post those "facts," instead of linking yet another right-wing website?
Also, prove that USA Today leans left, without using a right-wing source. I say they lean right. Prove me wrong.

http://www.rockpage.net/phpbb2/topic30386.html

I did post the original post of the thread with the link to the USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... titialskip

You are an idiot, and I don't have to prove it, you just did.

[slackin@dabass]

Joe and Sarah Palin. "Hate... Hate... Hate..." And you both know everything

Yes, but Joe is not a MILF

She may be a milf but she's fucking crazy. Shes like that hot bitch that keeps calling. Fuck that. If tossing one in her leads to a restraining order you can have that old stretched out pooter.

[songsmith]

The article that I posted is based upon facts from the USA Today paper article. The USA Today is not a conservative partisan website, it actually leans clearly left.

If your "facts" were based on a USA Today article, why didn't you just post those "facts," instead of linking yet another right-wing website?
Also, prove that USA Today leans left, without using a right-wing source. I say they lean right. Prove me wrong.

http://www.rockpage.net/phpbb2/topic30386.html

I did post the original post of the thread with the link to the USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... titialskip

You are an idiot, and I don't have to prove it, you just did.

Your link gives a number of 62 trillion, yet, your other blog link says 116 trillion. Did you not notice the discrepancy, or would you rather it just be the highest made-up number possible. It's a difference of 54 trillion, or nearly four times the GNP for 2009.
Then you called me an idiot, which proves how little you have to argue on. Give us a solid number, and back it up. Prove me wrong.

[Banned]

If your "facts" were based on a USA Today article, why didn't you just post those "facts," instead of linking yet another right-wing website?
Also, prove that USA Today leans left, without using a right-wing source. I say they lean right. Prove me wrong.

http://www.rockpage.net/phpbb2/topic30386.html

I did post the original post of the thread with the link to the USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... titialskip

You are an idiot, and I don't have to prove it, you just did.

Your link gives a number of 62 trillion, yet, your other blog link says 116 trillion. Did you not notice the discrepancy, or would you rather it just be the highest made-up number possible. It's a difference of 54 trillion, or nearly four times the GNP for 2009.
Then you called me an idiot, which proves how little you have to argue on. Give us a solid number, and back it up. Prove me wrong.

Clearly stated in the footnote.

http://stopnationaldebt.blogspot.com/p/ ... l?spref=fb