The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Elderberry on February 05, 2021, 12:07:11 pm
-
Not a Lot of People Know That By Paul Homewood 2/5/2021
As New England struggles through its latest winter storm, let’s look at the energy situation there:
Over the last two weeks, natural gas and coal have consistently been supplying around half of New England’s electricity, with nuclear providing most of the rest.
Wind power is currently at 0.4%, while solar power hardly appears at all.
(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/image_thumb-30.png?w=585&h=561)
(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/image_thumb-31.png?w=542&h=538)
More: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/02/05/what-will-new-england-do-without-fossil-fuels-joe/#more-48931 (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/02/05/what-will-new-england-do-without-fossil-fuels-joe/#more-48931)
-
Let the peasants starve in the cold while the Kerrys of the world continue to enjoy oil and gas while they jetset around.
-
Let the peasants starve in the cold while the Kerrys of the world continue to enjoy oil and gas while they jetset around.
Agreed. This climate change madness is, simply put, an assault on the poor.
-
They voted for it, let 'em freeze.
-
There was a pipeline to go in 2012 ish... of course that is the epicenter of the climate change hysteria, and a lot of people I knew voted against it. I tried explaining to people that blocking the pipelinew ould lead to more traffic, more pollution etc. not to mention higher prices, shortages. The pipeline went down in flames anyway.
-
Let them freeze in the dark. (Sorry, @Weird Tolkienish Figure. :crying: )
-
Let them freeze in the dark. (Sorry, @Weird Tolkienish Figure. :crying: )
I'll be fine, i heat with wood pellets, heat pump, and can use a generator if needed.
People not as fortunate as me will have a hard time affording heating. Also the lack of pipeline will increase pollution and traffic.
-
I'll be fine, i heat with wood pellets, heat pump, and can use a generator if needed.
People not as fortunate as me will have a hard time affording heating. Also the lack of pipeline will increase pollution and traffic.
Conservatives tend to be better prepared, it's our natural state.
-
What Will New England Do Without Fossil Fuels, Joe?
Continue to vote Democrat.
-
dfw wrote:
"They voted for it, let 'em freeze."
Not everyone here voted for it.
Here in Connecticut, both Litchfield and Tolland counties voted for Mr. Trump in both 2016 and again in 2020.
There's the single congressional district in Maine that I believe voted for Mr. Trump both times, as well.
There's a good chunk of New Hampshire that remains Republican.
As for Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... well... they're hopelessly blue.
They'll never come back.
Even as they're sitting there freezing in the dark, it will remain "Trump's fault".
-
dfw wrote:
"They voted for it, let 'em freeze."
Not everyone here voted for it.
Here in Connecticut, both Litchfield and Tolland counties voted for Mr. Trump in both 2016 and again in 2020.
There's the single congressional district in Maine that I believe voted for Mr. Trump both times, as well.
There's a good chunk of New Hampshire that remains Republican.
As for Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... well... they're hopelessly blue.
They'll never come back.
Even as they're sitting there freezing in the dark, it will remain "Trump's fault".
How do you feel about being a hostage?
-
Well, they could always burn those trees that turn colors so nicely every year. Failing that, furniture, railings, business districts, police cars, whatever is handy. Ogg knew fire makes cave warm. I reckon some folks will just have to reinvent the wheel...
-
Cyber wrote:
"How do you feel about being a hostage?"
Not that great. Can't hide that.
But hey...
... Who "won" the election in YOUR state...?
-
Cyber wrote:
"How do you feel about being a hostage?"
Not that great. Can't hide that.
But hey...
... Who "won" the election in YOUR state...?
It doesn't matter anymore. What does matter is the state is still technically in the Republicans' hands, so my charge is to get them to do something about the 2020 election. There are several statewide elections in 2022, and that's what I'm focused on at the moment.
-
It doesn't matter anymore. What does matter is the state is still technically in the Republicans' hands, so my charge is to get them to do something about the 2020 election. There are several statewide elections in 2022, and that's what I'm focused on at the moment.
I commend you for your efforts. My question though is, how can we expect a fair election in 2022? What has changed or will change? If anything I forsee the DEMS changing election rules in the next couple of years as well as changing the redistricting to their benefit.
-
I commend you for your efforts. My question though is, how can we expect a fair election in 2022? What has changed or will change? If anything I forsee the DEMS changing election rules in the next couple of years as well as changing the redistricting to their benefit.
That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue.
-
That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue.
Yes each state has their own election laws I get that. With that being said, you're not going to change how liberal states conduct their elections and ultimately the FEDS have jurisdiction. With the DEMS in full control, I'm not seeing how elections are going to be repaired. They also promised to change the electoral process. So, I'm not seeing a way forward to fair elections. What am I missing? I am truly not understanding @Cyber Liberty
-
Yes each state has their own election laws I get that. With that being said, you're not going to change how liberal states conduct their elections and ultimately the FEDS have jurisdiction. With the DEMS in full control, I'm not seeing how elections are going to be repaired. They also promised to change the electoral process. So, I'm not seeing a way forward to fair elections. What am I missing? I am truly not understanding @Cyber Liberty
Since it's a States issue, I don't want the Feds dictating elections. I want other states to do what they have to, but in the final analysis I can only do something about AZ. I cannot allow my inability to fix the other 49 to depress me to the point I can't do it for AZ.
That's what you're missing....
-
Since it's a States issue, I don't want the Feds dictating elections. I want other states to do what they have to, but in the final analysis I can only do something about AZ. I cannot allow my inability to fix the other 49 to depress me to the point I can't do it for AZ.
That's what you're missing....
I am not so much depressed about Trump not winning the election as I am knowing that our AG thumbed his nose at us and that our SCOTUS couldn't be bothered. We lost our Republic.
IMHO unless the ballot box is repaired in ALL states, we will never see a fair election. I'm trying to see a glimmer of hope and at this point I don't. I wish my health was such that I could strive to change things locally, but that's not the case. So ... enough said. I thank you for what you are doing.
-
Since it's a States issue, I don't want the Feds dictating elections. I want other states to do what they have to, but in the final analysis I can only do something about AZ. I cannot allow my inability to fix the other 49 to depress me to the point I can't do it for AZ.
That's what you're missing....
Word. There is no federally guaranteed right to vote in Presidential elections. It's up to the States.
-
Cyber wrote:
"That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue."
It will only remain "a States' issue" until the marxist Congress passes a new national election law that codifies all their "reforms".
With the passage of same, the red states' laws will be superseded, and with them, any effort to still maintain meaningful "elections".
They may nuke the filibuster to get this one through...
-
Cyber wrote:
"That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue."
It will only remain "a States' issue" until the marxist Congress passes a new national election law that codifies all their "reforms".
With the passage of same, the red states' laws will be superseded, and with them, any effort to still maintain meaningful "elections".
They may nuke the filibuster to get this one through...
States have to follow federal election law guidelines. I feel you are right @Fishrrman the left will do whatever they please in order to win. Ultimately I don't see that we have a two party system any longer.
The leftists have already stated when Hillary lost that they would change the electoral process and I have no doubt that they will.
Who is going to stop them? Even when we had a full majority in ALL houses because of McConnell and Ryan, the left still got away with what they wanted. No one stopped them. Too many RINO's.
-
Ultimately I don't see that we have a two party system any longer.
We have not had a real 2 party system since Bush 1, maybe even before that.
-
Freeze?
Not that I give a damn. They are all solid Dim states,and anybody that stupid deserves to freeze to death.
-
Joe wrote:
"We have not had a real 2 party system since Bush 1, maybe even before that."
We had something akin to one from January 20, 2017 until January 20, 2021.
The "party" membership may have been quite small, but for a time it was a true "2nd party" and actually behaved like one.
-
Since it's a States issue, I don't want the Feds dictating elections. I want other states to do what they have to, but in the final analysis I can only do something about AZ. I cannot allow my inability to fix the other 49 to depress me to the point I can't do it for AZ.
That's what you're missing....
We can fix it here. And half the states will follow us.
(https://rlv.zcache.com/texas_secession_sounds_better_every_day_bumper_sticker-raed65a1176b74444af8c3e7c9d795544_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg)
-
Cyber wrote:
"That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue."
It will only remain "a States' issue" until the marxist Congress passes a new national election law that codifies all their "reforms".
With the passage of same, the red states' laws will be superseded, and with them, any effort to still maintain meaningful "elections".
They may nuke the filibuster to get this one through...
IIRC, those guidelines were set as the purview of the State Legislatures by the Constitution. Sure, they'll likely find some way around that, but that won't make it Constitutional.
-
Smokin Joe wrote:
"IIRC, those guidelines were set as the purview of the State Legislatures by the Constitution. Sure, they'll likely find some way around that, but that won't make it Constitutional."
Hold on, Joe.
What about the "Voting Rights Act" passed back in 64 or 65?
Is that "Constitutional"?
Does it over-rule and preempt states' laws, or does it not...?
For years on this board, I've been posting that the Voting Rights Act -and- the Civil Rights Act were two of the worst laws ever passed by Congress.
You're soon going to find out WHY...
-
Smokin Joe wrote:
"IIRC, those guidelines were set as the purview of the State Legislatures by the Constitution. Sure, they'll likely find some way around that, but that won't make it Constitutional."
Hold on, Joe.
What about the "Voting Rights Act" passed back in 64 or 65?
Is that "Constitutional"?
Does it over-rule and preempt states' laws, or does it not...?
For years on this board, I've been posting that the Voting Rights Act -and- the Civil Rights Act were two of the worst laws ever passed by Congress.
You're soon going to find out WHY...
Any time the Feral Government starts "giving" people "Rights" they are giving someone a privilege the rest do not get, singling them out for special treatment.
No one ever gets more Rights from such, as it isn't up to the Government to give or take unalienable Rights in the first place. They exist. All it can do is to stop Government from infringing those Rights.
As for voting, the Constitution clearly states that the rules around voting are the purview of the State Legislatures, exclusively. Further codifying a Right included under the Ninth Amendment might only clarify that the right to vote is included in that (for Citizens), and establish constraints on the constraints imposed by law, but does not extend that authority to make those rules to any other agency., including the Federal Government.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to extend those Rights beyond the authority of the Constitution (i.e. to illegals), any more than it has the authority to remove those Rights from Citizens.
-
They voted for it, let 'em freeze.
They'll miss global warming when the coal plants are shut down.
But they'll still vote for the Rodents "saving" them.
-
That's the first order of business: Repair the elections, because of course if we don't do that, then we'll never win.
This is a States' issue.
The states have proven they cannot be trusted to hold honest elections.
What is necessary is a Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to establish a uniform standard for federal elections.
Ain't gonna happen.
-
Joe wrote:
"We have not had a real 2 party system since Bush 1, maybe even before that."
We had something akin to one from January 20, 2017 until January 20, 2021.
The "party" membership may have been quite small, but for a time it was a true "2nd party" and actually behaved like one.
By two party you mean the Rodents and RINOs on one side, and one man, president Trump, on the other.
-
Smokin Joe wrote:
"IIRC, those guidelines were set as the purview of the State Legislatures by the Constitution. Sure, they'll likely find some way around that, but that won't make it Constitutional."
Hold on, Joe.
What about the "Voting Rights Act" passed back in 64 or 65?
Is that "Constitutional"?
Does it over-rule and preempt states' laws, or does it not...?
For years on this board, I've been posting that the Voting Rights Act -and- the Civil Rights Act were two of the worst laws ever passed by Congress.
You're soon going to find out WHY...
Those laws were Constitutional to the point where they enforced the various Constitutional Amendments regarding voting and federal hiring, and otherwise, no.
The Congress has no authority to dictate to a private business who they hire and who they do business with.
That's as true for cake bakeries in Colorado in 2012 as it was for lunch counters in Selma in the 1950's. This is covered by the 13th Amendment. Think about it.
As for voting, the Constitution now permits idiots as young as 18 to vote, it permits females to vote, it forbids voting discrimination based on race.
The Rodents want to reduce the voting age to 16, 14, 3....I've seen them say that. The voting age should be 25 or even older. Keep the overgrown children still under education away from the levers of power.
Is it coincidence that the start of female suffrage coincided with the beginning of the decline of US society? Or was it the murder of the Republic by the 17th Amendment, the granting of first dibs on payroll to the federal government by the 16th amendment, or the Prohibition Overreach of the 18th Amendment that started the toboggan ride?
-
The states have proven they cannot be trusted to hold honest elections.
What is necessary is a Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to establish a uniform standard for federal elections.
Ain't gonna happen.
Consider the alternative: The Rats get their wish to Nationalize all elections, and everybody gets to enjoy California style voting. Is that what you want?
-
Sled Dog (who is relatively new around here) writes:
"Is it coincidence that the start of female suffrage coincided with the beginning of the decline of US society?"
You are absolutely right with your observation that as soon as women gained the power to vote, society began driftin' downgrade.
I am on record here as stating that women should not have the right to vote*. And I don't care what others think about that.
* Exceptions that might be permitted would be married women, and single women who are serving in the armed forces, or who have honorably completed such service.
-
I am on record here as stating that women should not have the right to vote*. And I don't care what others think about that.
* Exceptions that might be permitted would be married women, and single women who are serving in the armed forces, or who have honorably completed such service.
Wow
-
Consider the alternative: The Rats get their wish to Nationalize all elections, and everybody gets to enjoy California style voting. Is that what you want?
Wow.
Someone who's been in a coma since Halloween.
The nation HAS Rodent-style voting now.
So far in Trump's second term, some old senile geezer has been signing so many Executive Orders that they're thinking of using the autopen. Because, you know, that's how voting is already done in California.
-
Sled Dog (who is relatively new around here) writes:
"Is it coincidence that the start of female suffrage coincided with the beginning of the decline of US society?"
You are absolutely right with your observation that as soon as women gained the power to vote, society began driftin' downgrade.
I am on record here as stating that women should not have the right to vote*. And I don't care what others think about that.
* Exceptions that might be permitted would be married women, and single women who are serving in the armed forces, or who have honorably completed such service.
It's a little more basic than that.
Men work for a living, and if they don't, they get hungry.
Women find men to marry them so they can be fed.
Now, thanks to the 19th Amendment, women have been marrying the government, and like a disgusting pig of a husband, the government is giving the women what they want only if the government gets what it wants from the women.
So most women of loose morals vote as their little prostitute hearts tell them will get them the best paycheck.
As predictable as the frozen windmills of Texas.
That description is a trifle bald, but covers the essential points. That Rapist the Rodents installed with the connivance of Perot, you know, the draft dodger? Never in a million years could he have been elected without the Sucker Moms, especially the single/divorced ones who still need a man in their lives, Uncle Sam if not their sperm donors, to get by.
The Prostitute Wing of the suffragettes....they're too stupid to avoid getting themselves pregnant, so they demand the Rodents protect their non-existent right to murder their own children, and this is the strongest fattest plank in the Rodent Platform, every election year. Everyone else is expected to pay for the operations to clean these ignorant sluts out when they get knocked up.
Abortion, however, is still murder, and it's never been a right. The Hippocratic Oath forbids doctors from performing abortions or giving drugs to do the same.
-
Wow.
Someone who's been in a coma since Halloween.
The nation HAS Rodent-style voting now.
So far in Trump's second term, some old senile geezer has been signing so many Executive Orders that they're thinking of using the autopen. Because, you know, that's how voting is already done in California.
No, other states do not do balloting like California already. That's hyperbole. Some states attempted to do it illegally.
What is not hyperbole is Pelosi wants to force all states do their balloting like CA, complete with millions of unrequested ballots that can be dropped off en masse.
You will not generally find me in a coma, @Sled Dog. Try another pejorative next time, so I can be entertained properly.
-
The Congress has no authority to dictate to a private business who they hire and who they do business with.
That's as true for cake bakeries in Colorado in 2012 as it was for lunch counters in Selma in the 1950's. This is covered by the 13th Amendment. Think about it.
The 2012 Colorado bakery case is not the same as the 1960 Greensboro lunch counter case. The bakery case is not customer-based. It involves a State forcing a vendor to create and sell an item it never offered to sell. The lunch counter case deals with a State providing law enforcement support to a vendor that discriminate against individuals based solely on race, and thus abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving them of life, and liberty without due process of law, and denying them equal protection under the law.
-
I am on record here as stating that women should not have the right to vote*. And I don't care what others think about that.
Can't get on board with that. But I can definitely support forfeiture of voting rights for anyone and everyone getting a check from the government.
-
Can't get on board with that. But I can definitely support forfeiture of voting rights for anyone and everyone getting a check from the government.
You mean like Social Security checks?
-
You mean like Social Security checks?
Yes, including Social Security checks. (Of course Social Security checks shouldn't be coming from the government in the first place. They should be coming from your government-mandated retirement fund. But that's a different argument.)
You have two options. Either you exercise your vote, or you accept money from the government. People collecting food stamps or on government payroll shouldn't be empowered to vote for things that directly benefit them.
-
Yes, including Social Security checks. (Of course Social Security checks shouldn't be coming from the government in the first place. They should be coming from your government-mandated retirement fund. But that's a different argument.)
You have two options. Either you exercise your vote, or you accept money from the government. People collecting food stamps or on government payroll shouldn't be empowered to vote for things that directly benefit them.
When you have no choice to pay into Social Security, this is not acceptable. Only the rich would get to afford to pay in, not receive payment, and still vote.
-
Considering much of New England can be 20-30 degrees colder than what Texas is right now, you'd think this would be a free wake up call.
-
Considering much of New England can be 20-30 degrees colder than what Texas is right now, you'd think this would be a free wake up call.
Not really. This is same problem with energy production as with our homes in the south. The electric power generations can be built for this cold, regardless if wind turbine, nat gas or coal. Same with the gas wells and gas plants. It just takes more cost. All this stuff still works in Canada below our Texas freezing temperatures. But it cost more to build.
Just like with our homes and plumbing, we usually won't justify the cost for something that rarely happens. And for Texas, it very rarely happens to the whole state at the same time.
-
Not really. This is same problem with energy production as with our homes in the south. The electric power generations can be built for this cold, regardless if wind turbine, nat gas or coal. Same with the gas wells and gas plants. It just takes more cost. All this stuff still works in Canada below our Texas freezing temperatures. But it cost more to build.
Just like with our homes and plumbing, we usually won't justify the cost for something that rarely happens. And for Texas, it very rarely happens to the whole state at the same time.
I think you missed my point. New England is not immune to historic cold. Considering their increasing hatred of fossil fuels, I think it is very timely for them to realize how poor decison around how you manage your electrical grid can adversely impact the population.
-
Yes, including Social Security checks. (Of course Social Security checks shouldn't be coming from the government in the first place. They should be coming from your government-mandated retirement fund. But that's a different argument.)
You have two options. Either you exercise your vote, or you accept money from the government. People collecting food stamps or on government payroll shouldn't be empowered to vote for things that directly benefit them.
I'm with @thackney. SS was a forced "investment" that many did not want. I'm with you on the others, though.
-
I think you missed my point. New England is not immune to historic cold. Considering their increasing hatred of fossil fuels, I think it is very timely for them to realize how poor decison around how you manage your electrical grid can adversely impact the population.
I guess I am still not understanding your point.
-
No, other states do not do balloting like California already. That's hyperbole. Some states attempted to do it illegally.
What is not hyperbole is Pelosi wants to force all states do their balloting like CA, complete with millions of unrequested ballots that can be dropped off en masse.
You will not generally find me in a coma, @Sled Dog. Try another pejorative next time, so I can be entertained properly.
None of that matters.
Enough of the Rodent states colluded to steal the election, so for all intents and purposes the Rodent style of voting seen in California is the de facto norm for the entire country.
What's needed is a Constitutional Amendment federalizing election rules so that only citizens over (should be 25) can vote, provided they show a valid ID showing address and biometric validation presented at the polling PLACE, in person, and the voter MUST accept a temporary ink-stain on their hand to prevent repeat voting before the ballot can be counted. etc, etc, etc.
Otherwise you can count on California style election chicanery to become the permanent rule for elections henceforth.
But, back to the OP:
All of the New England states voted for the Usurper, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't freeze to death in the dark.
Do you?
-
Not really. This is same problem with energy production as with our homes in the south. The electric power generations can be built for this cold, regardless if wind turbine, nat gas or coal. Same with the gas wells and gas plants. It just takes more cost. All this stuff still works in Canada below our Texas freezing temperatures. But it cost more to build.
Just like with our homes and plumbing, we usually won't justify the cost for something that rarely happens. And for Texas, it very rarely happens to the whole state at the same time.
I think everyone in New York should be required to purchase earthquake insurance to reduce the cost of premiums I pay to protect my house here in Los Angeles...
...or, better, how about if states tax their residents to fund a recovery pool for whatever disasters their state happens to be most worried about.
In CA it would be quakes, brush fires and urban rioting.
For FL it would be hurry canes and lightning.
For OK it would be tornados.
For NY it would be cold weather and the occasional flood.
Etc.
I see no reason why I in CA or someone in NY should finance Loser Anna's occasional and expected bout of Katrina-itis. Or why people in Loser Anna should finance the CA's recovery from the next earthquake.
-
I think you missed my point. New England is not immune to historic cold. Considering their increasing hatred of fossil fuels, I think it is very timely for them to realize how poor decison around how you manage your electrical grid can adversely impact the population.
If the Mainiacs are not prepared for a simple winter storm, they need to face the consequences. They're supposed to be adults, those voters.
Time we expected adult behavior from them.
And if they act like children and get their toes frost bit, maybe they'll grow up a little and ....who am I kidding? They vote Rodent...
-
I'm with @thackney. SS was a forced "investment" that many did not want. I'm with you on the others, though.
Social Security was never an investment. It is a government ponzi scheme which you pay into at the point of a gun. Social Security (as is) is an 'entitlement' [sic] just like AFDC, food stamps, EITC, etc. If it was transformed into an investment mechanism (as President Bush tried to do in 2006), then it would no longer be a government handout.
-
I'm with @thackney. SS was a forced "investment" that many did not want. I'm with you on the others, though.
@Hoodat @thackney I agree with Cyber Liberty and thackney, in that SS was not optional, even for the self-employed (who actually paid in more than employees, who had a matching share from their employers). The less you made, the bigger the bite seemed, because at the bottom, twenty bucks is twenty bucks, not just pocket change.
Those are the folks getting by without the welfare check, trying to get ahead..and in the roughest straits of all.
I would reserve the vote for Social Security recipients who aren't getting a gov't paycheck otherwise and active duty service members/retired servicemen and those on a medical disability not employed otherwise by government.
Other government employees and welfare recipients would have a conflict of interest.
And start phasing that unconstitutional system out.
-
Social Security was never an investment. It is a government ponzi scheme which you pay into at the point of a gun. Social Security (as is) is an 'entitlement' [sic] just like AFDC, food stamps, EITC, etc. If it was transformed into an investment mechanism (as President Bush tried to do in 2006), then it would no longer be a government handout.
Fine, then give my money back (corrected for inflation) along with the matching share employers put in over the years.
-
Fine, then give my money back (corrected for inflation) along with the matching share employers put in over the years.
I couldn't agree more. And the "matching share" is still your money. You are the one who paid it - not your employer. It is money that would have been paid to you if the government didn't have guns.
Social Security is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon this nation. It steals our inheritance and ensures that the cycle of poverty is repeated every generation. If the money confiscated by government at the point of a gun was instead put into a government-mandated retirement fund (e.g. 401(k)) of each individual's choosing, even low-income fulltime workers would retire as millionaires capable of handing over an inheritance to their descendants.
-
Fine, then give my money back (corrected for inflation) along with the matching share employers put in over the years.
There is no money to give back.
That is what @Hoodat was saying. It is a clear Ponzi scheme, which by law is illegal to begin with.
And I support you in saying it should be graduated away.
-
Fine, then give my money back (corrected for inflation) along with the matching share employers put in over the years.
your
@Smokin Joe
You can't have it both ways. If you get back the money you put in,your former employers should get back the money they put in for you.
Minus,of course,the money you have already received.
-
All of the New England states voted for the Usurper, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't freeze to death in the dark.
Do you?
Nope. I agree 100%. And TX just had a wake-up call.
-
I couldn't agree more. And the "matching share" is still your money. You are the one who paid it - not your employer.
@Hoodat
Pure,unadulterated HorseHillary. Did you pay income taxes on that money?
It is money that would have been paid to you if the government didn't have guns.
Uh,huh. You are sounding like the welfare crowd that keeps screaming that the government owes them a living. You are confusing facts with greed.
-
@Hoodat
Pure,unadulterated HorseHillary. Did you pay income taxes on that money?
Social Security taxes are not double taxed. Those who are self-employed (i.e. responsible for paying the 'employer' portion) are able to deduct that portion from their income.
-
Social Security taxes are not double taxed. Those who are self-employed (i.e. responsible for paying the 'employer' portion) are able to deduct that portion from their income.
@Hoodat
Seems you missed the point.