The repubs are playing russian roulette with this appointment, when Hillary wins and she will, she will appoint a far left judge. Pay me now or pay me later.

Originally Posted by Guest

The repubs are playing russian roulette with this appointment, when Hillary wins and she will, she will appoint a far left judge. Pay me now or pay me later.

I agree!

Originally Posted by Guest

How many people in The Villages are on government assistance? Look over on the Historic side and into the older sections around Rio Grande. Look just outside The Villages to Lady Lake and Wildwood.

How many Villagers take the $15,000 property tax exemption for low income seniors in addition to their $50,000 homestead exemption?

How many Villagers regularly use the local food pantries because their limited survivors Social Security just is not enough?

Go on and do your mantra of "Don't Work, Don't Eat". Tell that to these Villagers.

What's social security have to do with welfare? What's taking tax breaks have to do with welfare? Are you stupid, or just an idiot?

Forbes Welcome

We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

Originally Posted by Guest

The repubs are playing russian roulette with this appointment, when Hillary wins and she will, she will appoint a far left judge. Pay me now or pay me later.

Unless Slick Willy can show her a way of winning the election without votes, she is going to have a bit of trouble getting elected. Democrat turnout is very low and Republican turn out is historically high, increased by millions. Hope you don't commit Seppuku when you don't get your way. Naw, that takes guts(pun intended), and we know that if you are a liberal it just ain't there. I'm sure that your momma can support you when you lose all your gov handouts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Forbes Welcome

We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

Yes, but they are also including EARNED benefits in their calculation. If the gov is going to force you to invest in your retirement, then they need to live up to their promise to deliver. Or, are they just another Ponzi scheme?

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, but they are also including EARNED benefits in their calculation. If the gov is going to force you to invest in your retirement, then they need to live up to their promise to deliver. Or, are they just another Ponzi scheme?

The 52% includes those recipients who have payed into social security and medicare.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, but they are also including EARNED benefits in their calculation. If the gov is going to force you to invest in your retirement, then they need to live up to their promise to deliver. Or, are they just another Ponzi scheme?

Yes, 13.6% includes recipients of social security and medicare...but that check stops when the country goes bankrupt too. Only difference is a majority of those recipients are not just counting on SS to survive. Yeah I know you want and need that money, but be honest a person would be a fool to think they could afford to retire on that alone.

SS is a ponzi scheme to some degree. The first people to draw never paid into the fund and ever since then it has run in the red. Maybe they will do what the labor unions are doing and set up tiered pension plans, but wait who will fund the original pension if all the new members are paying into a different fund???

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

Originally Posted by Guest

The 52% includes those recipients who have payed into social security and medicare.

Yes, but I doubt that 52% of the population are retired and of medicare age. Unless there is that much fraud going on. I do realize that thousand of dead people are receiving gov benefits.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, but I doubt that 52% of the population are retired and of medicare age. Unless there is that much fraud going on. I do realize that thousand of dead people are receiving gov benefits.

The 52% includes...........

The SCOTUS is a joke. They're as bought and paid for as the Senators who nominate them.

This judge nominee is against the 2nd Amendment, so he doesn't get my support. As if that mattered to the D.C. elite anyway.

Nothing but an Obama political lever to throw into the election cycle.....he thinks.

It also shows how he continually defies precedent and the rules of the game.

Gee what was his position on this very same subject when he was a senator?
In so many words no way allow a republican president to nominate a judge in their lame duck year.

SURPRISE!!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)

So did the Democrats actually block a Republican a Supreme Court nominee? If so could you provide a link please?

Originally Posted by Guest

So did the Democrats actually block a Republican a Supreme Court nominee? If so could you provide a link please?

No. There was no Supreme Court nominee in "W's" last year 2008. Also, there wasn't a nominee in his father's last year, 1992.