Shopsmith Forums

lightnin wrote:As your watching the Presidential debates and speeches from all the politicians.
Keep in mind how to use body language to tell when a politician is lying.
Their lips move.

Actually THEY are not moving their lips, the PACs are moving their lips for them! Isn't it amazing how life like they can some times appear!?!

THANKS!

I've been saying it for years.

How do you tell if a politician is lying?

Yep, lips are moving!

Gene, remember my Uncle, Jake Flake?
that is the ONLY politician I'd trust.

He'd get baseball tickets, then vote
against the guys who gave him the tickets.
He also taught me how to drive. Auto, (well really
a truck) and a tractor, too. Taught me how to ride a
horse, too. State Congressman, Speaker of the House,
and later a State Senator.

Jeff Flake is NOT the man he was! (Sorry Jeff, you still
got my vote.)

steve

I have a very different opinion about politicians. I think they are lying when their eyes are open.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. House Bills have been introduced to reduce federal employees retirement pay by 30 - 40 percent over the next 10 years. That also, includes military retirees. Federal employees pay is going to be reduced over the next two years, pay freeze put in place 2 years ago is now on the floor to continue the pay freeze for another 3 years. All federal employees hired in the last 5 years will now pay 10% toward their retirement vice the current 7.2% There will have to be another increase in the national debt, no matter who gets elected.

Just for clarification: Federal workers pay this before they get a check.

Federal Income Tax+FICA (10%)+life insurance+health insurance
Optional deduction 5% or 10% toward TSP.

Just for grins and giggles: TSP funds since last October
G fund +1.56% - F Fund +5.24% - C Fund +30.34% - S Fund +30.74% - I Fund +15.52% - L Fund +6.67% - L 2020 +15.22% - L2030 + 18.64% - L 2040+21.21% - L 2050 + 23.48%

Source: tsp.gov

Steve,
I concur whole heartedly.

skou wrote:THANKS!

I've been saying it for years.

How do you tell if a politician is lying?

Yep, lips are moving!

Gene, remember my Uncle, Jake Flake?
that is the ONLY politician I'd trust.

He'd get baseball tickets, then vote
against the guys who gave him the tickets.
He also taught me how to drive. Auto, (well really
a truck) and a tractor, too. Taught me how to ride a
horse, too. State Congressman, Speaker of the House,
and later a State Senator.

Jeff Flake is NOT the man he was! (Sorry Jeff, you still
got my vote.)

steve

swampgator wrote:I have a very different opinion about politicians. I think they are lying when their eyes are open.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. House Bills have been introduced to reduce federal employees retirement pay by 30 - 40 percent over the next 10 years. That also, includes military retirees. Federal employees pay is going to be reduced over the next two years, pay freeze put in place 2 years ago is now on the floor to continue the pay freeze for another 3 years. All federal employees hired in the last 5 years will now pay 10% toward their retirement vice the current 7.2% There will have to be another increase in the national debt, no matter who gets elected.

Just for clarification: Federal workers pay this before they get a check.

Federal Income Tax+FICA (10%)+life insurance+health insurance
Optional deduction 5% or 10% toward TSP.

Just for grins and giggles: TSP funds since last October
G fund +1.56% - F Fund +5.24% - C Fund +30.34% - S Fund +30.74% - I Fund +15.52% - L Fund +6.67% - L 2020 +15.22% - L2030 + 18.64% - L 2040+21.21% - L 2050 + 23.48%

Source: tsp.gov

Same for 'FICA' payers. Question is, does the federal 'employer' pay matching amount(10%) like 'normal' employers pay 7.2%(?) on top of the employees 'contribution'?

I look for FICA rate to increase and limits removed.






BTW Not all politicians lie! Some are not lawyers after all. But most are guided by a faulty moral compass. That compass will get them elected though!:rolleyes:

You mean that all employees will start paying in Jan. 2013 the new rate of 10% of their pay check?

I know that since 1982, for the first time, DOD and other government agencies had to start paying matching contributions to FICA. Before then, they were supposed to make matching contributions to our retirement system, but did not. So, I hope employers match that, but that would be another reason to lay off employees and not hire more employees.

swampgator wrote:You mean that all employees will start paying in Jan. 2013 the new rate of 10% of their pay check?

I know that since 1982, for the first time, DOD and other government agencies had to start paying matching contributions to FICA. Before then, they were supposed to make matching contributions to our retirement system, but did not. So, I hope employers match that, but that would be another reason to lay off employees and not hire more employees.

Some where the rationale is: To get x amount of 'work' done we need y amount of 'people'. One cannot lay off or do without people and still 'get things done'. So the cost of said people is not the determining factor of how many one employs. That cost needs to be reflected in how much one 'charges' for one's product. If that be too high to remain competitive, then other areas need be explored to reduce costs. No one said it is either easy or simple!;)

Let me begin with a disclaimer. In 1998 I ran for a State Senate seat here in Montana. My opponent was a two term Senator who would be gone in 4 years due to term limits. I raised about $300 and spent about $260. And yes those amounts are correct. I went to every forum, debate, gathering where I was invited and at one I was the only Republican to attend. I spoke the truth as I knew and NEVER said an unkind word regarding my opponent. I took my lead from a Congressmen named Claiborne Pell (the Pell Grant...) who never said anything against his opponents.

Because I did not play the game of the party I was given no funds by them (and never asked for any and turned down donations from individuals). I received 36 or 37 percent of the vote and that was my foray in to politics. Four years later the two opposing candidates raised $75,000 dollars and the loser garnered only 35 percent (though more people might have voted and she may have received more votes than me).

Why do I lead with all this, because as I spew the following I believe you should know my background and with that you can form a better idea of why I say (or spew) what I do.

I feel that the candidates are not the problem, but it is the party leaders. They equate more money with more power. They don't look for the best candidate, but instead look for the one that will bring in the most money. Appearance, willingness to lie (for the sake of the party), bend personal morals (though on occasion they have already been bent )

As written in a different post (The Presidential Debate), the parties drive a wedge between neighbors with "fear" . As long as parties and money drive elections, we will have to compromise on who gets elected.

The media loves this and helps to inflame the situation.. The more conflict, the more money pours in for ads. And the "pundits" and "experts" get to inflame the situation more so the parties buy more ads!!

That brings me to another "sore" point. Until just a few months ago, Montana had said that corporations were not individuals and as such could not directly influence elections by throwing money at the candidate they wanted to win. Now the Supreme Court has said that contradicts the First Amendment. I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers, no matter how elite, really wanted the First Amendment to mean that the most money gets to yell the loudest.

I am now old enough that I pay no attention to the party (the Republicans have long since abandoned sending me requests for donations) and listen to the candidate. I vote based on what they say, not on how they follow the party line. I think most people who on this forum are wise enough to do the same. At least wisdom over rashness seems to be the standard.

Frankly I don't trust either Presidential candidate, but I trust Obama less.

However beyond all the rhetoric and blustering my 86 year old Mother had a simple comment. She said in this economy she would rather vote for someone who knows how to make a million dollars than someone who didn't. I guess that's where she sees her priorities

qualifier. I have read re-read and reproofed the above, but it IS late so any mistakes in grammar, typos or anything else... sorry

I sat in on a political PAC meeting a couple of years ago. There was one comment made that I will never forget.

"If you want to get a politicians attention, you either have to have money or be willing to volunteer your time towards their interests/campaign."