Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate

[TeeJay410]

Yea Romney is really more an, "I actually know what I'm doing" kind of guy. If he doesn't want to have a beer with me because he's busy not being as shitty as Obama (and he's Mormon) so be it.

Well unfortunately most voters don't think like that. It's a sad game of pandering but it has to be played, and has been played since after WW2 at the end of the political machines. Unfortunately for the GOP, Romney doesn't seem to be playing that game. He's wagering that American's will vote for him because he's not Obama. Frankly this whole thing seems like 2004 in reverse. The Obama campaign is even doing the hardball attacks early like bush did in '04 on the assumption that by the time the race is supposed to have heated up, the damage was already done in the summer.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Romney is probably more out of touch and awkward tha McCain was. At least McCain was an endearing and adorable old man. He was like grandpa.

[TeeJay410]

Romney is probably more out of touch and awkward tha McCain was. At least McCain was an endearing and adorable old man. He was like grandpa.

I actually like John McCain, but the man isn't what he used to be. He was forced to become a shadow of himself while running, the election was quite sad in that respect.

[downzy]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

On the note of social security, something like half of the city of Portland's budget goes to PERS. And the structure of PERS around here is disgusting. Your pension ends up being calculated by whatever your salary had peaked during a minimum of 1-2 years.

Pension reform and social security reform are two different issues. I agree that most pensions in the United States are bloated and not feasible under existing economic conditions. Entitlement reform is something that truly needs attention. I don't disagre with Ryan who makes entitlement reform an issue time and time again. A big problem with the auto industry in the U.S. is that it became overloaded with crushing pension obligations.

When I say "guaranteed return," what I mean is that your monthly social security return will not waiver from month to month (except when adjusted for inflation), allowing individuals to budget accordingly. This would not be feasible under a privatized social security regime.

But social security is something that can easily be fixed, by either raising payroll taxes or altering slightly the benefits and those who qualify. You always hear cries of "they sky is falling" when it comes to social security, but it's not a complex problem to solve. People thought it was going bankrupt back in the early 80s (well, it would have), but Reagan increased the payroll taxes in 1983 that helped keep the fund afloat for decades. Alter the benefits, the eligibility requirements, or increase payroll and you can keep it a float. These three variables can be made bigger and smaller depending on need and economic conditions. It's a sustainable system so long as it's managed properly.

You may not like what you're likely to get when you retire, but the claim that you're not going to be getting anything is a tad premature. Conservatives always claim that privatizing social security would save it. But if you look at the market (particularly the S&P500), it's remained flat for the past 10 years. Moreover, what would have seniors done in 2002 and 2008 when the market tanked? They would have got nothing to live on, forcing them either to find work (good luck with that, only Walmart hires seniors to wave to people nowadays) or dip into their savings, thus reducing their principle which would lead to less income when the market rebounded. Privatized social security accounts are great when the market is growing, but do you really think your golden years will never suffer from market slips or meltdowns?

I'm saying they should be run like an IRA, they don't have to be put into the hands of the stock market, but there should be an amount deducted for one to do with as they please. You piss it away? That's your tough shit. You want to plant it in a money market and let it accrue that small bit of interest, feel free. Put it in the stock market you want.

Welcome to a free market, not everyone is guaranteed anything, it is what you make of it.

So on the one hand it's not a free market if the government takes a part of your pay check for retiring, but it is a free market if the government forces you to put your money in a self-appointed investment vehicle?

Basically, those who get to retire well are those who either really know the market well and thus know where to put their money or are just plane lucky. Or, if you don't want to do risk anything, put it into a money market or treasury bond where they're guaranteed a lower rate than inflation (which fucks the poor and less affluent more than they already are). Since the government always seems to be the one on the hook when the market tanks and financial institutions crumble (see 2008), it seems appropriate that it has some say in how people fund their retirement. Or at least that's how I see.

Sorry, but this whole, "it's a free market, you get what you make of it" is full of shit. You really think the food you eat or the gas that drives your car is priced by the market? This rugged individualism argument put forth by the Republicans and libertarians may sound great in principle, but it's what generations of Americans fought against during the gilded age. I'm not a fan of communism or a restriction on individual liberties, but I do think we're economically interconnected. To suggest that the "free market" serves only the best, smartest and hard working is to ignore how the Republican nominee for President got to where he is today.

Yea Romney is really more an, "I actually know what I'm doing" kind of guy. If he doesn't want to have a beer with me because he's busy not being as shitty as Obama (and he's Mormon) so be it.

Considering how shitty Romney's campaign has been so far, the whole "I know what I'm doing" argument kind of falls apart. Creating jobs in the private sector and creating them as President are two entirely different things.

Edited August 11, 2012 by downzy

[arnold layne]

I'll vote for Obama. I can't afford to pay for my own insurance.

[bran]

Two clean cut white guys. The image alone can turn off voters.

It won't matter who gets elected. The President doesn't have all the power. The power is shared. The President has the power of veto and is the commander and chief, but there's 535 other people running, along with Supreme Court, administrators and state governments. The President is the fall guy.

this

it doesnt matter who the fuck is president if we have dumb fucks on both sides of the aisle in the other 2/3 of government

[bran]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

social security should have been privatized long ago i know it is a radical concept for people to manage their own money and not have government get its grubby fucking hands on it.

this is how fucked up social security is

my grandmother worked all her life since she was 16. she worked in a factory making boots and shoes when that closed she went to a factory where they made crutches. that too went out of business

she then went to a woolen mill where the job listing suggested it as mans work. she said she could do it. she had to lift 50+ pound bags all day and then push these big compressors. she did this for 30 years.

as she was doing this she cleaned banks for 3 days a week for someone who owned the bank. when she retired she got just under 1,000 dollars a month for social security.

A girl i know is 2 years younger than me, never worked a day in her life has "mental issues" and is a major drug addict. she goes gets disability and gets 1200 dollars a month for the rest of her life never has to wear and tear her body(minus what drug abuse does to it) while my grandmother gets less while her right shoulder is fucked up and her knees are shot.

my grandmother is very good with her money and would have done 1,000 times better with her own money than some grub in washington dc

[Vincent Vega]

Um...did downzy really refer to Social Security as a "guaranteed return?" Are you fucking kidding me? I wish we had privatized Social Security a long time ago, then people my age would actually have a chance to get it.

social security should have been privatized long ago i know it is a radical concept for people to manage their own money and not have government get its grubby fucking hands on it.

this is how fucked up social security is

my grandmother worked all her life since she was 16. she worked in a factory making boots and shoes when that closed she went to a factory where they made crutches. that too went out of business

she then went to a woolen mill where the job listing suggested it as mans work. she said she could do it. she had to lift 50+ pound bags all day and then push these big compressors. she did this for 30 years.

as she was doing this she cleaned banks for 3 days a week for someone who owned the bank. when she retired she got just under 1,000 dollars a month for social security.

A girl i know is 2 years younger than me, never worked a day in her life has "mental issues" and is a major drug addict. she goes gets disability and gets 1200 dollars a month for the rest of her life never has to wear and tear her body(minus what drug abuse does to it) while my grandmother gets less while her right shoulder is fucked up and her knees are shot.

my grandmother is very good with her money and would have done 1,000 times better with her own money than some grub in washington dc

You do realize the way Social Security has been organized has been changed over the years, right? That in it's original inception it didn't have Disability? I know Republictards would love for us to live exactly like it's 1789 and "Fuck the poor, feed the rich" but....Your grandmother sounds like she had a shit work history. What you put in to Social Security is what you get out of it in terms of payments. Also, factor in when your grandma worked (IE what decades) and when she retired.

As for the girl you know...She could be one of many who unfortunately scam the SSDI system or she could legitimately have issues.

But because there is abuse in a system doesn't mean you should eliminate the entire program. Republicans do not seem to understand the word "reform", they seem only understand the words "eliminate", "no" and "privatize." I know the concept of giving a little more in taxes so less fortune people can have a chance is alien to sociopathic republican types, whose mindset is "I got mine, fuck you." But letting people who abuse a system be the end of it, when the program in reality benefits a shit ton of people, it helps much more than it hurts, is stupid. But then again most right wing ideas are.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Vincent Vega

[bran]

the problem is something has to be done it cannot keep going on this way anymore. medicaid,medicare,social security hell even the fucking us mail is bottom up. we dont need to outright scrap the systems but we need to do some major tweaking to them

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

[downzy]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

Because you'd see the percentage of seniors living in poverty skyrocket. A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them). If you allow for personal or private allocation of retirement funds required by the government, you're enabling a gambling attitude that will ultimately lead to a horrible retirement (or no retirement) for many Americans. It's not as though individuals can't contribute to their own retirement plays as they see fit, but if you're making next to nothing most of your life, can you really afford to take a chance with what little you're forced to save? The "greaseball" in DC who manages your money is ensuring Americans see a stipend when you retire, the "greaseball" on wall street who'd managed private accounts only cares about his quarterly bonus check. That's the difference. You can argue that well, those who lose their retirement funds due to bad investments or rotten lucked are on their own. But really, is that what you want to tell Grandma because some Bernie Madoff guy screwed her out of her life's savings? Heaven forbid the market truly melts down and there's now 40 million Americans who just had their savings wiped out. You don't think they're going to be looking for assistance by the Government anyway? Unless Romney gets elected and turns into former President Hoover, no President would give the middle finger to a senior population who now have nothing.

When you personally risks your retirement, only you pay when those bets go belly up. If everyone is allowed to do it, then you have a systemic issue in which everyone will pay. Personally, I think it's better to have a small portion of your retirement that's backed by the government to sit outside the whims and fortunes of people's risk tendencies. If you want to risk more of your retirement with investment schemes and like outside of the payroll tax, have at it.

[bran]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

Because you'd see the percentage of seniors living in poverty skyrocket. A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them). If you allow for personal or private allocation of retirement funds required by the government, you're enabling a gambling attitude that will ultimately lead to a horrible retirement (or no retirement) for many Americans. It's not as though individuals can't contribute to their own retirement plays as they see fit, but if you're making next to nothing most of your life, can you really afford to take a chance with what little you're forced to save? The "greaseball" in DC who manages your money is ensuring Americans see a stipend when you retire, the "greaseball" on wall street who'd managed private accounts only cares about his quarterly bonus check. That's the difference. You can argue that well, those who lose their retirement funds due to bad investments or rotten lucked are on their own. But really, is that what you want to tell Grandma because some Bernie Madoff guy screwed her out of her life's savings? Heaven forbid the market truly melts down and there's now 40 million Americans who just had their savings wiped out. You don't think they're going to be looking for assistance by the Government anyway? Unless Romney gets elected and turns into former President Hoover, no President would give the middle finger to a senior population who now have nothing.

When you personally risks your retirement, only you pay when those bets go belly up. If everyone is allowed to do it, then you have a systemic issue in which everyone will pay. Personally, I think it's better to have a small portion of your retirement that's backed by the government to sit outside the whims and fortunes of people's risk tendencies. If you want to risk more of your retirement with investment schemes and like outside of the payroll tax, have at it.

im not saying that we fuck the seniors or the seriously disabled. i mean for workers who want to set up their own little accounts somewhere they should have that choice. we can always find revenue for disabled people and the seniors. the way things are going their is no way to sustain it anymore, pensions,entitlements and the like are a big rock tied around our necks

we have to cut back and that includes defense spending as well

[AbominableHoman]

As you mentioned earlier. Why do all the companies have trillions saved, and also stored in tax havens in the first place?

[dalsh327]

the problem is something has to be done it cannot keep going on this way anymore. medicaid,medicare,social security hell even the fucking us mail is bottom up. we dont need to outright scrap the systems but we need to do some major tweaking to them

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

There's fixes to the problem, but they don't want to do it. The system's complicated that I doubt most of Congress even knows what's in the bills coming through.

The amount of money they have to spend just in advertising should have limits on it. For some reason, they say the US is "broke" but it's amazing where money comes from.

The inevitable is a tax increase, but making the people in the upper tax bracket cut back on the loopholes. If paying tax is supposed to be "patriotic", we have a lot of traitors in the 1 percent. There's this assumption that when they hold the loot, they're going to trickle money down into the mass population, but jobs are being outsourced, or in some cases, people coming to the US on visas because the education system in America isn't creating enough engineers, or the engineers in the US are working in other countries. America's not making stuff, maybe some pills, some tobacco, selling fruits and vegetables, some booze, and some movies & music.

I think things are slowly turning around, people are starting to loosen up, but change is slow.

I don't think Romney's campaign is strong enough to go against Obama. I said before that the worst thing he could've done is said he ran a business. Looking like an elitist is a really bad thing right now, and he doesn't have that folksy "aw shucks" charm that worked for Clinton and Bush. Ryan's strength is that he was a young elected official and unlike Palin or Obama, spent over a decade in the Beltway.

But when it comes to the House of Reps, if you have a small district, you can easily win. In Ryan's case, his district's right over the Wisconsin border, short of Milwaukee, and stops at Janesville, not Madison WI, which is a college town. There's the usual dirty tricks of pulling lawn signs on each other but a lot of people wind up running unopposed. Janesville has 63,000 people. So he had dairy farms, some factories, and a few small cities.

I don't know about privatizing social security, I think the US needs to have social programs like most countries in the world do. The insurance companies are a big problem on the healthcare end, and not just people needing health coverage, but doctors who have to pay out the ass for malpractice insurance. I mean, what happens in the UK, Canada or Italy if a doctor fucks up? All doctors have to be state certified in the US, they lose their license in one state, but could have licenses in other states. Forgot what the deal with Michael Jackson's doctor was.

Taxes have to go up across the board, the US government has to open jobs, and the annual budget really has to be looked at and scrutinized more than ever. The defense budget - I think if they sat down and figured it out, the amount contractors get is staggering compared to what guys in uniform get. The American people pay into it, but they have no say in how it's handled.

[AxlisOld]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them).

Then, no offense, fuck you. It isn't the gov't's responsibility how I spend my money, nor is it their how I invest my money.

God forbid people take responsibility for their own life. I don't need policy dictated by how stupid a lot of people are.

[downzy]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

Because you'd see the percentage of seniors living in poverty skyrocket. A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them). If you allow for personal or private allocation of retirement funds required by the government, you're enabling a gambling attitude that will ultimately lead to a horrible retirement (or no retirement) for many Americans. It's not as though individuals can't contribute to their own retirement plays as they see fit, but if you're making next to nothing most of your life, can you really afford to take a chance with what little you're forced to save? The "greaseball" in DC who manages your money is ensuring Americans see a stipend when you retire, the "greaseball" on wall street who'd managed private accounts only cares about his quarterly bonus check. That's the difference. You can argue that well, those who lose their retirement funds due to bad investments or rotten lucked are on their own. But really, is that what you want to tell Grandma because some Bernie Madoff guy screwed her out of her life's savings? Heaven forbid the market truly melts down and there's now 40 million Americans who just had their savings wiped out. You don't think they're going to be looking for assistance by the Government anyway? Unless Romney gets elected and turns into former President Hoover, no President would give the middle finger to a senior population who now have nothing.

When you personally risks your retirement, only you pay when those bets go belly up. If everyone is allowed to do it, then you have a systemic issue in which everyone will pay. Personally, I think it's better to have a small portion of your retirement that's backed by the government to sit outside the whims and fortunes of people's risk tendencies. If you want to risk more of your retirement with investment schemes and like outside of the payroll tax, have at it.

im not saying that we fuck the seniors or the seriously disabled. i mean for workers who want to set up their own little accounts somewhere they should have that choice. we can always find revenue for disabled people and the seniors. the way things are going their is no way to sustain it anymore, pensions,entitlements and the like are a big rock tied around our necks

we have to cut back and that includes defense spending as well

Like I said in my previous post, pension reform and social security reform are two different things. Many local, state and industry pensions are way out of whack from economic reality.

But social security is different. It is sustainable so long as you adjust the three variables (eligibility, pay roll tax, benefits) to retain its solvency. It's faced many challenges before, and every time they implement a simple fix to keep it solvent. Such was the case in 1983 when it was on the brink of bankruptcy.

Workers are more than welcome to set up their own little accounts, but just not with the payroll taxes (moreover, privatization of social security would have serious repercussion on those already receiving social security). Like I said, if you allow everyone to opt out of social security and start their own retirement accounts, you run the risk of a huge swath of people some day potentially with no savings to live on. Can you imagine what would have happened had Bush successfully privatized social security back in his tenure as President with what happened in 2008? The DOW dropped from 12k-13k points to 6500. Millions of seniors were still able to live because their social security accounts weren't in the market. If you want to park your own money that's on top of the pay roll taxes, have at it. But that doesn't risk of bringing the system down as it would if the entire social security system was privatized.

[DirtyDeeds]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

[bran]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

i really dont see that as the republican agenda though

[downzy]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them).

Then, no offense, fuck you. It isn't the gov't's responsibility how I spend my money, nor is it their how I invest my money.

God forbid people take responsibility for their own life. I don't need policy dictated by how stupid a lot of people are.

Nice attitude you got there. I suppose you've never required a student loan, or a government subsidy, or any form of government assistance. I mean, one's life should be nothing but the result of your own efforts right? The Gilded Age is calling, they think you'd fit right in.

Guess there were a lot of stupid people in 2008, who lost 30-50 percent of their life savings because it was in the market. What about the billions of dollars lost by Madoff. Guess they were pretty dumb to trust their money with someone who was seen as so reputable until the walls crumbled (including guys like Spielberg, Kevin Bacon, and Jeffrey Katzenberg (Dreamworks CEO)). And I suppose you have little pity for those who were swindled by investment advisers and banks who pushed their clients to invest in supposedly AAA rated asset-backed securities. I mean, fuck them for trusting the ratings agencies who were bestowing their seal of approval on extremely toxic commodities.

Things aren't so black and white as conservatives make them out to be. There are many reasons why, other than protecting those who can't protect themselves (guess you don't believe in seat belts, consumer protections, auto insurance, etc), why you don't want everyone's retirement to be completely privatized.

[downzy]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

i really dont see that as the republican agenda though

It's certainly part of the hard right agenda. There's a strong libertarian strand in the Republican party that ascribes to a rugged individualism. Where in today's announcement of Ryan do you hear any sense of community? Unless it's sporting event, a national emergency, or killing Osama bin Laden, I haven't seen a strong sense of community in America. Read Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone." The bonding glue of social capital has been in decline for decades. Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

[AxlisOld]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

I get to say that, because I earned and save every single penny I have in my account. I don't have any money from my parents/inheritance, I worked minimum wage at a pizza place and saved the money I had left over because I had roommates. My entire house down payment and car were paid for with money I saved from that. That is why I say anyone can make it, because I did. Also, please don't mention me and miser in the same sentence, as he will interpret that as me (and the Skype Crew) conspiring against him.

[AxlisOld]

i really dont get why people hate the idea of privatizing social security. why would you not want to manage it yourself instead of some fucking greaseball in DC?

A good percentage of people are just not good with money (I'm one of them).

Then, no offense, fuck you. It isn't the gov't's responsibility how I spend my money, nor is it their how I invest my money.

God forbid people take responsibility for their own life. I don't need policy dictated by how stupid a lot of people are.

Nice attitude you got there. I suppose you've never required a student loan, or a government subsidy, or any form of government assistance. I mean, one's life should be nothing but the result of your own efforts right? The Gilded Age is calling, they think you'd fit right in.

Guess there were a lot of stupid people in 2008, who lost 30-50 percent of their life savings because it was in the market. What about the billions of dollars lost by Madoff. Guess they were pretty dumb to trust their money with someone who was seen as so reputable until the walls crumbled (including guys like Spielberg, Kevin Bacon, and Jeffrey Katzenberg (Dreamworks CEO)). And I suppose you have little pity for those who were swindled by investment advisers and banks who pushed their clients to invest in supposedly AAA rated asset-backed securities. I mean, fuck them for trusting the ratings agencies who were bestowing their seal of approval on extremely toxic commodities.

Things aren't so black and white as conservatives make them out to be. There are many reasons why, other than protecting those who can't protect themselves (guess you don't believe in seat belts, consumer protections, auto insurance, etc), why you don't want everyone's retirement to be completely privatized.

When you enter the market, you go in with an understanding that you can lose EVERYTHING. Just because Madoff was trusted, you are still giving your money to someone else. And no, I have no pity for people who were "swindled," if you fall for a scam, you can look around all you want, but the person to blame is right in the mirror. Some govt subsidies are necessary, that's just fact, but there's a limit and we're way beyond it. Like I said, I earned my way, so can others.

[bran]

I love how AxlIsOld so embodies the image of the heartless asshole conservative that he even uses the language of "I got mine; fuck you," that Miser has been inferring was the subtext of the Republican agenda.

i really dont see that as the republican agenda though

It's certainly part of the hard right agenda. There's a strong libertarian strand in the Republican party that ascribes to a rugged individualism. Where in today's announcement of Ryan do you hear any sense of community? Unless it's sporting event, a national emergency, or killing Osama bin Laden, I haven't seen a strong sense of community in America. Read Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone." The bonding glue of social capital has been in decline for decades. Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

at the same time their is a hard left agenda where they want the government to wipe their asses for them and let the government take care of them from cradle to grave were does the idiocy stop?

[DirtyDeeds]

Nobody feels like they're connected to anyone unless they cheer for the same team. And really, isn't that what political parties have become. They're nothing more than teams to cheer for with politics becoming a spectator sport.

I think there's a good bit of truth in that. I was about to reply to AxlIsOld (I had nothing bad to say in it, just that he is treating certain variables in his equation of life as constants), but I decided, you know what, I don't want to get involved in this, I want to just sit back and watch how this thread plays out (I do realize I'm kind of fucking that up right now by posting). And now that you say it, I kind of see conservatives in the same way I see Yankee fans (I'm unabashedly a liberal Met fan), simultaneously the scum of the Earth and for the most part (except for a few of them-- and I count in that both conservatives and Yankee fans ) probably mostly decent, but misguided people. The scum of the Earth part is really just my identifying a rival to cheer against, and I want them to benefit as much from my ideals as I would like my own "team" to benefit from them. I wouldn't want them to suffer too much when unpredictable circumstances make things fall apart (as they do way too often to too many people). Likewise I wouldn't want a bomb to go off in Yankee Stadium. All I want is to someday see 25,000 asshole fans in pinstripes crying as they leave the stadium after the Mets have beat them in a Subway World Series. But then I want them to get home safely.

[DirtyDeeds]

So now AxlIsOld is, without doubt, and, without shame, blaming the victim. "Got screwed over by Bernie in his massive ponzi scheme that fooled even the top investment people in the world and the government for decades, while you were shown all kinds of false evidence? Fuck you, stupid!"

It's great that you worked so hard and got yourself where you are today. Those are qualities that, in the right circumstances (key words), will get you even further ahead. However, if your wider worldview is as you present it here, that's a major character flaw. And if you believe in God, then I hope I die before you, because I'm afraid you might hold up the line to get in when you're stuck explaining yourself

[arnold layne]

Please Mr. Romney would you pay for my psychiatrist bills and my depression medicine. I know it's not your fault I need them but you see, it's not my fault I need them either. I was born this way. I wish I was happy like other people you know. Please help me pay for them.