On 11/7/2010 3:17 AM, Bryan wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:43 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11/6/2010 7:17 PM, Bryan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, > wrote:
>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> Om -> a conservative liberal...
>>>>>> (but I think Obamacare sucks)
>>
>>>>> OK, let's discuss why. The majority of folks don't really even have a
>>>>> clue about the particulars.
>>
>>>> Neither did Congress when they voted for it. THAT is NOT how I want my
>>>> representatives to work. They sure weren't listening to anyone but
>>>> themselves when doing their wheelin' and dealin'. Transparency be damned!
>>
>>> And you know this HOW?
>>
>>> --Bryan
>>
>> Maybe when the all knowing smarter than everyone soon to be former
>> speaker said: "We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it,” ?
>>
>> http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
>
> Click on his own link to see how he slightly changed the meaning. The
> ACTUAL quote is, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find
> out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." She was not
> addressing fellow Congress members. EXACTLY what in the Patient
> Protection and Affordable Care Act do you object to? I guess you're
> sticking with your Fox News talking points and personally attacking
> Pelosi rather than identifying real faults in this great piece of
> legislation. Now I'm personally questioning your integrity. Liar.
>
> --Bryan

Please don't twist my words.

You asked how folks knew that they politicians didn't have a clue. The
speaker said she didn't and insulted everyone who doesn't share her
beliefs (that pesky "controversy" where people who have differing opinions.

People are really tired of condescending people like Pilosi and you who
somehow imagine they are superior to everyone who doesn't share their
belief system. It adds a nice touch showing what you are all about when
you spout your people should die if they don't acknowledge and agree
with your imagined superior beliefs.

Not hard to see why you still don't get why she had the gavel removed
from her hand last Tuesday?

On Nov 7, 1:22*pm, George > wrote:
> On 11/7/2010 3:17 AM, Bryan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 6:43 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2010 7:17 PM, Bryan wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>> Bryan wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>> Om -> * *a conservative liberal...
> >>>>>> (but I think Obamacare sucks)
>
> >>>>> OK, let's discuss why. *The majority of folks don't really even have a
> >>>>> clue about the particulars.
>
> >>>> Neither did Congress when they voted for it. THAT is NOT how I want my
> >>>> representatives to work. They sure weren't listening to anyone but
> >>>> themselves when doing their wheelin' and dealin'. *Transparency be damned!
>
> >>> And you know this HOW?
>
> >>> --Bryan
>
> >> Maybe when the all knowing smarter than everyone soon to be former
> >> speaker said: "We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it,” ?
>
> >>http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
>
> > Click on his own link to see how he slightly changed the meaning. *The
> > ACTUAL quote is, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find
> > out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." *She was not
> > addressing fellow Congress members. *EXACTLY what in the Patient
> > Protection and Affordable Care Act do you object to? *I guess you're
> > sticking with your Fox News talking points and personally attacking
> > Pelosi rather than identifying real faults in this great piece of
> > legislation. *Now I'm personally questioning your integrity. *Liar.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> Please don't twist my words.

I don't have to. You do fine all by yourself. See your next
sentence.
>
> You asked how folks knew that they politicians didn't have a clue.

Which politicians "didn't have a clue, " county administrators?
That's who she was speaking to, not to House members.

> The speaker said she didn't and insulted everyone who doesn't share her
> beliefs (that pesky "controversy" where people who have differing opinions.

She didn't say the she, herself, "didn't have a clue."
>
> People are really tired of condescending people like Pilosi and you who
> somehow imagine they are superior to everyone who doesn't share their
> belief system. It adds a nice touch showing what you are all about when
> you spout your people should die if they don't acknowledge and agree
> with your imagined superior beliefs.

I didn't say you should die. I said that I personally hope you die.
Me. I'd even enjoy watching you die. Very few progressives share
that mean streak. It's much more common on your side of the spectrum.
>
> Not hard to see why you still don't get why she had the gavel removed
> from her hand last Tuesday?

The stupidity of lower and middle income folks who vote against their
own economic best interests. There are two types of Republicans, rich
ones and stupid ones. I look forward to seeing any specifics about
the health care plan that you or anyone else who acts like it's a
disaster might have. It's the finest piece of legislation for over a
generation. I bet you're too cowardly to argue specifics. A liar AND
a coward.

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:
>
> The stupidity of lower and middle income folks who vote against their
> own economic best interests. There are two types of Republicans, rich
> ones and stupid ones. I look forward to seeing any specifics about
> the health care plan that you or anyone else who acts like it's a
> disaster might have. It's the finest piece of legislation for over a
> generation.
>
> --Bryan

Are you aware of the nineteenth century arguments for limiting the
franchise. One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.

And if a conservative party insists upon and accomplishes the
destruction of a once flourishing and successful public school system
they create the fulfillment of their own fears by a false economy that
produces an enfranchised illiterate masses.

I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
never get Social Security Benefits. Unless that rule is changed for
teachers and they are given the bonus of a bigger national debt to give
them retirement benefits, there will be less and less people inclined to
choose teaching as a career and i would accept it beings 'means tested'
there are well off teachers who would not miss the lack of less than a
thousand dollars a month.

And many many teachers who will not be able to retire at 62 but expect
to have to work in a deteriorating system till they drop dead.

Unfortunately the ball is rolling, down the Sysiphian hill and it will
be a task of generations to push it back up to where it started its
descent into chaos and the breakdown of modern civilization.

Which, no matter how well or nobly we try may be inevitable.

The nature of the beast.

Expecting or trying to train mankind to be something other than a beast
of the jungle may be a futile task. Life feeds on death and must
encompass its own destruction, one way or another.

The animals species that is Man may be inherently, neurologically or
even genetically incapable of creating a fully equitable system for very
large numbers (billions and billions) of people.

And of course, if this "Beast" that is mankind manages to genuinely
threaten itself with the fruits of the tree of knowledge (of which they
ate) its own self destruction it might get theological and yet baring
the complete destruction of the biosphere and the extinguishing of all
life on earth, anything less would be a mere foot note in history.

Civilizations rise and fall, and so called "modern" civilization and the
impact its having on traditional cultures seems to me at this time not
in the best of health, and really showing signs of a potentially fatal
stress. The obesity epidemic and all its symptomology is as much a
metaphor of modern civilization as it is a medical issue.

The liberals want to give too much according to the conservatives who
want to give less and are called selfish by the more liberal.

Those people trying to be a better people don't mind regulations and
watchful concern by a higher authority deserving of respect, while those
selfish people who not only want more money & more power to abuse others
with in order to get more money/power, don't want no 'big brother'
interfering with their ability to be as abusive as they can get away
with. Individually, familiarly, tribally, culturally, corporately.

It all seems very simple to me but ...."who does not learn from history
is doomed to repeat it."

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and modern civilization has
got complacent. If not asleep at the wheel then perhaps a bit drowsy
after 60 years of gorging on its abundance. And in the process
encouraging others to do the same. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow
we may....
--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:22:23 -0500, George >
wrote:

> Not hard to see why you still don't get why she had the gavel removed
> from her hand last Tuesday?

Sorry, George... wrong again. She didn't lose her seat and you can't
be majority leader if your party didn't retain majority. It's as
simple as that. She has the votes lined up to be the minority leader.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

Nowhere will you find that a public employee, may contribute to both
State/Municipal pensions system, and the Govt's SS System, under one
jurisdiction.

It's quite possible that if that person has/had outside employment,
part time or otherwise, previous or after, outside the hours of their
public employment..... most assuredly will as required by law, pay
into the SS System, and therefore be eligible for SS Benefits



On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:35:31 -0800, JL > wrote:
>
>Bryan wrote:
>>
>> The stupidity of lower and middle income folks who vote against their
>> own economic best interests. There are two types of Republicans, rich
>> ones and stupid ones. I look forward to seeing any specifics about
>> the health care plan that you or anyone else who acts like it's a
>> disaster might have. It's the finest piece of legislation for over a
>> generation.
>>
>> --Bryan
>
>Are you aware of the nineteenth century arguments for limiting the
>franchise. One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
>schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.
>
>And if a conservative party insists upon and accomplishes the
>destruction of a once flourishing and successful public school system
>they create the fulfillment of their own fears by a false economy that
>produces an enfranchised illiterate masses.
>
>I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
>allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
>never get Social Security Benefits. Unless that rule is changed for
>teachers and they are given the bonus of a bigger national debt to give
>them retirement benefits, there will be less and less people inclined to
>choose teaching as a career and i would accept it beings 'means tested'
>there are well off teachers who would not miss the lack of less than a
>thousand dollars a month.
>
>And many many teachers who will not be able to retire at 62 but expect
>to have to work in a deteriorating system till they drop dead.
>
>Unfortunately the ball is rolling, down the Sysiphian hill and it will
>be a task of generations to push it back up to where it started its
>descent into chaos and the breakdown of modern civilization.
>
>Which, no matter how well or nobly we try may be inevitable.
>
>The nature of the beast.
>
>Expecting or trying to train mankind to be something other than a beast
>of the jungle may be a futile task. Life feeds on death and must
>encompass its own destruction, one way or another.
>
>The animals species that is Man may be inherently, neurologically or
>even genetically incapable of creating a fully equitable system for very
>large numbers (billions and billions) of people.
>
>And of course, if this "Beast" that is mankind manages to genuinely
>threaten itself with the fruits of the tree of knowledge (of which they
>ate) its own self destruction it might get theological and yet baring
>the complete destruction of the biosphere and the extinguishing of all
>life on earth, anything less would be a mere foot note in history.
>
>Civilizations rise and fall, and so called "modern" civilization and the
>impact its having on traditional cultures seems to me at this time not
>in the best of health, and really showing signs of a potentially fatal
>stress. The obesity epidemic and all its symptomology is as much a
>metaphor of modern civilization as it is a medical issue.
>
>The liberals want to give too much according to the conservatives who
>want to give less and are called selfish by the more liberal.
>
>Those people trying to be a better people don't mind regulations and
>watchful concern by a higher authority deserving of respect, while those
>selfish people who not only want more money & more power to abuse others
>with in order to get more money/power, don't want no 'big brother'
>interfering with their ability to be as abusive as they can get away
>with. Individually, familiarly, tribally, culturally, corporately.
>
>It all seems very simple to me but ...."who does not learn from history
>is doomed to repeat it."
>
>The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and modern civilization has
>got complacent. If not asleep at the wheel then perhaps a bit drowsy
>after 60 years of gorging on its abundance. And in the process
>encouraging others to do the same. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow
>we may....

Leon Manfredi wrote:

> Nowhere will you find that a public employee, may contribute to both
> State/Municipal pensions system, and the Govt's SS System, under one
> jurisdiction.


My friend tells me the pension plan she was forced to be a part of is
laughably inqonsequential, and while i dont remember the actual dollar
amount she might get after a specific number of years i recall her
telling me it would be around $50-100 per month.

>
>
> It's quite possible that if that person has/had outside employment,
> part time or otherwise, previous or after, outside the hours of their
> public employment..... most assuredly will as required by law, pay
> into the SS System, and therefore be eligible for SS Benefits


She has taught elementry school in Ca, for 30 + years but previous to
that did have various other jobs.

I hope for her and her Teacher husbands sake that there is some sort of
SS benifits available to her. They are not in any way well off.

But from what she told me she is not allowed, as a Ca. teacher to pay
into the regular SS system.
--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

On 11/7/2010 5:40 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:22:23 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> Not hard to see why you still don't get why she had the gavel removed
>> from her hand last Tuesday?
>
> Sorry, George... wrong again. She didn't lose her seat and you can't
> be majority leader if your party didn't retain majority. It's as
> simple as that. She has the votes lined up to be the minority leader.
>

"Having the gavel removed from her hand" clearly means something
different than loosing her seat.

As I said before if you don't get it you simply won't see why the
election turned out as it did. Lots of folks have had enough of the
elitism and Pilosi loosing her position is a result of the people
expressing that on Tuesday. And don't misunderstand that I want the days
of old either because both parties worked together to get us where we
are today.

On 11/7/2010 4:35 PM, JL wrote:
>
>
> Bryan wrote:
>>
>> The stupidity of lower and middle income folks who vote against their
>> own economic best interests. There are two types of Republicans, rich
>> ones and stupid ones. I look forward to seeing any specifics about
>> the health care plan that you or anyone else who acts like it's a
>> disaster might have. It's the finest piece of legislation for over a
>> generation.
>> --Bryan
>
> Are you aware of the nineteenth century arguments for limiting the
> franchise. One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
> schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.

You just invalidated your entire argument by claiming that folks who
received an education from a church school are "ill-educated".

>
> And if a conservative party insists upon and accomplishes the
> destruction of a once flourishing and successful public school system
> they create the fulfillment of their own fears by a false economy that
> produces an enfranchised illiterate masses.
>
> I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
> allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
> never get Social Security Benefits. Unless that rule is changed for
> teachers and they are given the bonus of a bigger national debt to give
> them retirement benefits, there will be less and less people inclined to
> choose teaching as a career and i would accept it beings 'means tested'
> there are well off teachers who would not miss the lack of less than a
> thousand dollars a month.
>
> And many many teachers who will not be able to retire at 62 but expect
> to have to work in a deteriorating system till they drop dead.
>
> Unfortunately the ball is rolling, down the Sysiphian hill and it will
> be a task of generations to push it back up to where it started its
> descent into chaos and the breakdown of modern civilization.
>
> Which, no matter how well or nobly we try may be inevitable.
>
> The nature of the beast.
>
> Expecting or trying to train mankind to be something other than a beast
> of the jungle may be a futile task. Life feeds on death and must
> encompass its own destruction, one way or another.
>
> The animals species that is Man may be inherently, neurologically or
> even genetically incapable of creating a fully equitable system for very
> large numbers (billions and billions) of people.
>
> And of course, if this "Beast" that is mankind manages to genuinely
> threaten itself with the fruits of the tree of knowledge (of which they
> ate) its own self destruction it might get theological and yet baring
> the complete destruction of the biosphere and the extinguishing of all
> life on earth, anything less would be a mere foot note in history.
>
> Civilizations rise and fall, and so called "modern" civilization and the
> impact its having on traditional cultures seems to me at this time not
> in the best of health, and really showing signs of a potentially fatal
> stress. The obesity epidemic and all its symptomology is as much a
> metaphor of modern civilization as it is a medical issue.
>
> The liberals want to give too much according to the conservatives who
> want to give less and are called selfish by the more liberal.
>
> Those people trying to be a better people don't mind regulations and
> watchful concern by a higher authority deserving of respect, while those
> selfish people who not only want more money & more power to abuse others
> with in order to get more money/power, don't want no 'big brother'
> interfering with their ability to be as abusive as they can get away
> with. Individually, familiarly, tribally, culturally, corporately.
>
> It all seems very simple to me but ...."who does not learn from history
> is doomed to repeat it."
>
> The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and modern civilization has
> got complacent. If not asleep at the wheel then perhaps a bit drowsy
> after 60 years of gorging on its abundance. And in the process
> encouraging others to do the same. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow
> we may....

On Nov 7, 8:54*pm, George > wrote:
> On 11/7/2010 5:40 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:22:23 -0500, >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Not hard to see why you still don't get why she had the gavel removed
> >> from her hand last Tuesday?
>
> > Sorry, George... wrong again. *She didn't lose her seat and you can't
> > be majority leader if your party didn't retain majority. *It's as
> > simple as that. *She has the votes lined up to be the minority leader..
>
> "Having the gavel removed from her hand" clearly means something
> different than loosing her seat.
>
> As I said before if you don't get it you simply won't see why the
> election turned out as it did. Lots of folks have had enough of the
> elitism and Pilosi loosing her position is a result of the people
> expressing that on Tuesday. And don't misunderstand that I want the days
> of old either because both parties worked together to get us where we
> are today.

The fact that you repeatedly misspell Speaker Pelosi's name suggests
that you have heard it a lot, but have seldom seen it in print. Maybe
Fox News? AM propaganda radio?

So, what are your objections to the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act?
And while we're at it, why don't you want to tax the wealthy to help
the deficit?
Oh, that's right, the wealthy are like gods. Like gods they "create,"
in their case, create jobs, and of course jobs that they can siphon
profits from are so much more real than public works jobs. That goes
without saying...or does it?

--Bryan

In article >,
Leon Manfredi > wrote:

> Nowhere will you find that a public employee, may contribute to both
> State/Municipal pensions system, and the Govt's SS System, under one
> jurisdiction.

Things have changed over the years. Some public employees are able to
opt out of Social Security, but many are not. I worked for the State of
California for 25 years, and they took Social Security out of my check
every month. I will start collecting Social Security benefits at some
point.

> It's quite possible that if that person has/had outside employment,
> part time or otherwise, previous or after, outside the hours of their
> public employment..... most assuredly will as required by law, pay
> into the SS System, and therefore be eligible for SS Benefits

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:35:31 -0800, JL > wrote:

> >I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
> >allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
> >never get Social Security Benefits.

People can only opt out of Social Security if they have certain other
types of government retirement plans. In California, that is STRS
(State Teachers Retirement System). I know someone with many years in
the system who retired at 105% of her pay! As she said, how could she
justify working anymore if she made less working than retiring? There
are a very few teachers who are hurting, I don't remember the
circumstances. I do know that STRS provides no health benefits.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article ,
> Leon Manfredi wrote:
>
>
> >Nowhere will you find that a public employee, may contribute to both
> >State/Municipal pensions system, and the Govt's SS System, under one
> >jurisdiction.
>
>
> Things have changed over the years. Some public employees are able to
> opt out of Social Security, but many are not. I worked for the State of
> California for 25 years, and they took Social Security out of my check
> every month. I will start collecting Social Security benefits at some
> point.
>
>
> >It's quite possible that if that person has/had outside employment,
> >part time or otherwise, previous or after, outside the hours of their
> >public employment..... most assuredly will as required by law, pay
> >into the SS System, and therefore be eligible for SS Benefits
>
>
> >On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:35:31 -0800, JL wrote:
>
>
> >>I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
> >>allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
> >>never get Social Security Benefits.
>
>
> People can only opt out of Social Security if they have certain other
> types of government retirement plans. In California, that is STRS
> (State Teachers Retirement System). I know someone with many years in
> the system who retired at 105% of her pay! As she said, how could she
> justify working anymore if she made less working than retiring? There
> are a very few teachers who are hurting, I don't remember the
> circumstances. I do know that STRS provides no health benefits.
>
I will re-quize her about what she told me but from what i understand
her pension will be a pittance.

--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

Joseph wrote:

>>> One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
>>> schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.
>>
>> You just invalidated your entire argument by claiming that folks who
>> received an education from a church school are "ill-educated".
>
> Which indicates you are not aware of the stuggle for and evolution of
> free/mandatory state run schools.

I don't think either of you are communicating very well in this thread.
Problem is, the meaning of the term "church school" has not been agreed upon
for the purposes of this discussion.

Consider that the Jesuits are products of "church schools" and are
*extremely* well-educated. It doesn't matter whether there are alternate
ways by which an education can be obtained; denigrating the education which
can be acquired from an ecclesiastic institution of higher learning shows an
appalling lack of perspective.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
>
>
> >>>One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
> >>>schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.
> >>
> >>You just invalidated your entire argument by claiming that folks who
> >>received an education from a church school are "ill-educated".
> >
> >Which indicates you are not aware of the stuggle for and evolution of
> >free/mandatory state run schools.
>
>
> I don't think either of you are communicating very well in this thread.
> Problem is, the meaning of the term "church school" has not been
> agreed upon
> for the purposes of this discussion.
>
> Consider that the Jesuits are products of "church schools" and are
> *extremely* well-educated. It doesn't matter whether there are alternate
> ways by which an education can be obtained; denigrating the education
> which
> can be acquired from an ecclesiastic institution of higher learning
> shows an
> appalling lack of perspective.
>
> Bob
>
>
Jeusitical reasoning?

How familiar are you with the history of church controlled schools in
europe and america.

I can rember public school prayer in the US.

--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

In article >,
JL > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > >>I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
> > >>allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she will
> > >>never get Social Security Benefits.
> >
> >
> > People can only opt out of Social Security if they have certain other
> > types of government retirement plans.

> I will re-quize her about what she told me but from what i understand
> her pension will be a pittance.

Sounds pretty sad. California used to be known for its investment in
education. Not any more.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:54:13 -0500, George >
wrote:

>
> As I said before if you don't get it you simply won't see why the
> election turned out as it did. Lots of folks have had enough of the
> elitism and Pilosi loosing her position is a result of the people
> expressing that on Tuesday. And don't misunderstand that I want the days
> of old either because both parties worked together to get us where we
> are today.

You aren't making any sense.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:51:33 -0800, JL > wrote:

> She has taught elementry school in Ca, for 30 + years but previous to
> that did have various other jobs.
>
> I hope for her and her Teacher husbands sake that there is some sort of
> SS benifits available to her. They are not in any way well off.
>
> But from what she told me she is not allowed, as a Ca. teacher to pay
> into the regular SS system.

Teachers in California have their own retirement system and they don't
make contributions to social security - they pay into it. There's a
"double dipping" clause that I don't understand, so if she contributed
to social security along the way through other jobs - ss will be
reduced because she has her teacher retirement income. Dan Abel may
be able to explain it. I can't.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:27:51 -0800, JL > wrote:

> I will re-quize her about what she told me but from what i understand
> her pension will be a pittance.

Not possible for a 30 year teacher. Maybe she's talking about what's
left after she pays her bills.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> JL wrote:
>
>
> >Dan Abel wrote:
>
>
> >>>>I know an elementary school teacher in Ca. that tells me she is not
> >>>>allowed to contribute to the Social Security system. And thus she
> will
> >>>>never get Social Security Benefits.
> >>
> >>
> >>People can only opt out of Social Security if they have certain other
> >>types of government retirement plans.
>
>
> >I will re-quize her about what she told me but from what i understand
> >her pension will be a pittance.
>
>
> Sounds pretty sad. California used to be known for its investment in
> education. Not any more.
>
That was my point ands im told its more nation wide than a lot of people
realize.

--

Mr. Joseph Paul Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.

Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

On 11/8/2010 12:24 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:54:13 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As I said before if you don't get it you simply won't see why the
>> election turned out as it did. Lots of folks have had enough of the
>> elitism and Pilosi loosing her position is a result of the people
>> expressing that on Tuesday. And don't misunderstand that I want the days
>> of old either because both parties worked together to get us where we
>> are today.
>
> You aren't making any sense.
>

About what? Am I confused about the organization of the Federal
government? I don't want elitists and I don't want members who are owned
by big business. Just look at the voting record on most of the
legislation that got us to where we are and you will see both parties
worked together. Many people are tired of the usual "democrats did it"
"no the republicans did it" nonsense. Tossing people out and keeping
others sitting on the edge of their chairs is a good thing.

One of the reasons I voted to fire our Democrat Congressman who I always
supported was because he became one of the biggest cheerleaders for
bailing out all of his pirate friends in the banking industry. So
instead of allowing them to fail for the excess risk they took he was
one of the major promoters of the "to big to fail" marketing campaign so
that his owners could enjoy big bonuses, not wear handcuffs and keep
their pirate businesses operating as usual and the average person had to
pay for it all.

On 11/7/2010 11:39 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
>>>> One cant expect the un or ill educated (including the church
>>>> schools) to make intelligent assessments and choices.
>>>
>>> You just invalidated your entire argument by claiming that folks who
>>> received an education from a church school are "ill-educated".
>>
>> Which indicates you are not aware of the stuggle for and evolution of
>> free/mandatory state run schools.
>
> I don't think either of you are communicating very well in this thread.
> Problem is, the meaning of the term "church school" has not been agreed upon
> for the purposes of this discussion.
>
> Consider that the Jesuits are products of "church schools" and are
> *extremely* well-educated. It doesn't matter whether there are alternate
> ways by which an education can be obtained; denigrating the education which
> can be acquired from an ecclesiastic institution of higher learning shows an
> appalling lack of perspective.
>
> Bob
>
>
No communication problem. He is clearly an elitist who believes he is
superior to folks who have religious beliefs.

In article >,
George > wrote:


> About what? Am I confused about the organization of the Federal
> government? I don't want elitists and I don't want members who are owned
> by big business. Just look at the voting record on most of the
> legislation that got us to where we are and you will see both parties
> worked together. Many people are tired of the usual "democrats did it"
> "no the republicans did it" nonsense. Tossing people out and keeping
> others sitting on the edge of their chairs is a good thing.

Sure. Let's just throw them all out and let bums off the street run the
government. Wait a minute! Maybe that's not a good idea?

> One of the reasons I voted to fire our Democrat Congressman who I always
> supported was because he became one of the biggest cheerleaders for
> bailing out all of his pirate friends in the banking industry. So
> instead of allowing them to fail for the excess risk they took he was
> one of the major promoters of the "to big to fail" marketing campaign so
> that his owners could enjoy big bonuses, not wear handcuffs and keep
> their pirate businesses operating as usual and the average person had to
> pay for it all.

The time to stop that collapse was back in the late 1990's when the
regulations were gutted. Once things started collapsing, there really
wasn't much choice. People talk about holding the banks responsible,
but that wasn't really possible. All deposits in US banks are
guaranteed by the Federal Government (the FDIC or related group). The
banks weren't gambling with their own money. They were gambling with
their depositor's money, which was guaranteed by the government. The
government was going to have to pay up, one way or the other.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:51:33 -0800, JL > wrote:
>
> > She has taught elementry school in Ca, for 30 + years but previous to
> > that did have various other jobs.
> >
> > I hope for her and her Teacher husbands sake that there is some sort of
> > SS benifits available to her. They are not in any way well off.
> >
> > But from what she told me she is not allowed, as a Ca. teacher to pay
> > into the regular SS system.
>
> Teachers in California have their own retirement system and they don't
> make contributions to social security - they pay into it. There's a
> "double dipping" clause that I don't understand, so if she contributed
> to social security along the way through other jobs - ss will be
> reduced because she has her teacher retirement income. Dan Abel may
> be able to explain it. I can't.

No, I'm in way over my head here. You were the public school teacher,
I'm guessing you probably know more than me. I will throw out a couple
of things. Joseph never claimed that his acquantance was a public
school teacher. It doesn't make sense that she couldn't participate in
Social Security if she worked for a private school, but I don't know.
Also, most know that teacher's unions are very strong, including in
California. A corollary to that is that the classified union is
extremely weak. This person could actually be an aide rather than a
certificated teacher.

Enough speculation.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

> Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2010, 9:20pm
> (CST+1) From:
> (Leon*Manfredi)

> Nowhere will you find that a public
> employee, may contribute to both
> State/Municipal pensions system, and
> the Govt's SS System, under one
> jurisdiction.

My husband worked for the State of Texas from the late 80s through the
mid-90s, and paid into both Social Security and the State Retirement
Plan.

> It's quite possible that if that person
> has/had outside employment, part time
> or otherwise, previous or after, outside
> the hours of their public employment...
> most assuredly will as required by law,
> pay into the SS System, and therefore
> be eligible for SS Benefits

I worked for 30 years and paid into SS. Then, at age 51, I went to work
for a City government, where we only pay into the City's retirement
fund, and not SS. I've been there for 11 years now. My earliest
retirement age will be 66, but I plan to keep working after that (like,
'til I drop!) because I won't be able to afford to retire.

Each year, I get a statement from SS telling me how much I'll receive
when I choose to 'retire' (i.e. at age 62, 66, or 70). Each year, the
monthly amount I'll receive goes DOWN because I haven't been paying into
the system for the past 11 years. IF I'm able to keep working until age
71 and retire from the City, I'm sure my SS will be next to nothing by
then.

NOTE TO YOU YOUNGER PEOPLE: Start planning for your retirement NOW!

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 07:42:04 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> A corollary to that is that the classified union is
> extremely weak. This person could actually be an aide rather than a
> certificated teacher.

The other possibility I thought of was 30 years as substitute teacher.
As far as I know, they are not on the same contract and don't have a
health plan unless they are a core sub... but I'm only familiar with
the way SFUSD works (and that changes all the time).

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:22:23 -0500, George wrote:

> On 11/7/2010 3:17 AM, Bryan wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 6:43 pm, > wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2010 7:17 PM, Bryan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 4:44 pm, > wrote:
>>>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>> Om -> a conservative liberal...
>>>>>>> (but I think Obamacare sucks)
>>>
>>>>>> OK, let's discuss why. The majority of folks don't really even have a
>>>>>> clue about the particulars.
>>>
>>>>> Neither did Congress when they voted for it. THAT is NOT how I want my
>>>>> representatives to work. They sure weren't listening to anyone but
>>>>> themselves when doing their wheelin' and dealin'. Transparency be damned!
>>>
>>>> And you know this HOW?
>>>
>>>> --Bryan
>>>
>>> Maybe when the all knowing smarter than everyone soon to be former
>>> speaker said: "We have to pass this bill to find out whatÿs in it,¡ ?
>>>
>>> http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
>>
>> Click on his own link to see how he slightly changed the meaning. The
>> ACTUAL quote is, ´But we have to pass the bill so that you can find
>> out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." She was not
>> addressing fellow Congress members. EXACTLY what in the Patient
>> Protection and Affordable Care Act do you object to? I guess you're
>> sticking with your Fox News talking points and personally attacking
>> Pelosi rather than identifying real faults in this great piece of
>> legislation. Now I'm personally questioning your integrity. Liar.
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> Please don't twist my words.
>
> You asked how folks knew that they politicians didn't have a clue. The
> speaker said she didn't and insulted everyone who doesn't share her
> beliefs (that pesky "controversy" where people who have differing opinions.

no, it's people like you lying about what she said and others lying about
'death panels' and shit like that. and since you took care to misconstrue
what she said and put it in quotation marks, i'd say it was a deliberate
lie.
>
> People are really tired of condescending people like Pilosi and you who
> somehow imagine they are superior to everyone who doesn't share their
> belief system.

it ain't a disagreement about a belief system. it's lies about the facts.

blake