lol yes. Perhaps they'll discuss his under three hour marathon time. Either the guy is a sociopath or he's got dementia.
NPR: Rove to divert superPAC funds from Romney to WI and MA Senate races. I read that as giving up the ghost on the Romney election, but who knows. A shame the GOP fucked up so bad. Romney/Paul would've won by 6.
which universe are you in? This 'response' is just a bunch of gibberish that has nothing to do with me quoting you.. I didn't even bring up medicare busting out, you're dodging the question. You asked lucrum if he would deny medicare out of principle, which is what i quoted. Assuming he paid in and not by choice, why would he, or anyone else, opt out regardless of their position on medicare?
Because Romney doesn't need it so divert it to try and get a better majority in the Senate by spending it on close races there.
Sorry I have a peeve about responding to circular BS from a guy who's attempting to represent someone else. I never stated he would opt out. I asked him if he would out of principle, and stated that traders don't often pay into the system. I probably know lucrum better than you and have no clue what his contributions are. You want to make the World hinge on my asking him if he would opt-out. lol, when you know what his contributions are to the dollar you let us all know. THE point (I made in the next post) was that it's financial suicide to self-underwrite regardless of contribution. The old get sick and require care. Few can afford to self underwrite (regardless of contribution) and it's a piss poor wager if you do. $120k average salary over 35y results in a $60k contribution. If you're rich and didn't contribute it's a massive asymmetric risk to self-insure. If you're rich and contributed all you're career it's still a massive asym risk to self-insure. There is no argument to self insure; whether you've contributed or not. That's my only argument regarding Medicare.
Romney doesn't need it, lol. 33/100 on intrade. If nothing else they should feed the propaganda machine and lift the intrade offers on the Romney bet. Someone queue Jem to come in here and accuse the DEMs of lifting Obama offers on intrade.
Romney has more cash than Obama and Obama committed to a cash heavy strategy that allows him little flexibility to events. I think Romney is adequately funded and his pacs are better funded. For one or more to concentrate on Senate races only makes sense. We'll see how correct intrade is in a month or so. I suspect it is all younger people making small bets to it so it is probably not representative. Honest polls seem to give Romney the edge. Also, Reagan was trailing at this stage. It is in the last few days when people on the fence make their decissions that we will most likely see a larger swing towards Romney. Like your SS arguments, your points just appear to be made for the sake of arguing with little basis in reaching a truthful analysis.
OK, let's prop-bet it right now. I'll bet you 2:1 against Romney hitting 40/100 (marked to 33.3 currently) to win on intrade.com by NYSE close on Oct 15, 2012. I am laying it off at 2:1 in your favor. Offer expires by NYSE close today. SS? I thought the topic was Medicare?
LOL, I don't place bets with morons on ET. I don't need to and it doesn't serve any sane purpose. It was SS and medicare that both are REQUIRED deductions from taxable ordinary income which you already know. Even on non-taxable income for some.