<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rabbipruzansky.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com</link>
	<description>A compilation of the Rabbi's recent thoughts and ideas..</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:37:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on War on Religion by DF</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/02/03/war-on-religion/#comment-1828</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DF]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/02/03/war-on-religion/#comment-1828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The response of the Catholics did not fo far enough. They condemned the proposed ruling, to be sure, and called it disapointing, but they did not come out swinging. Case in point: When the Israeli government wanted to draft girls for the army, the rabbinic leadership literally said the response would be &quot;over my dead body&quot; (yeherg vi&#039;al yavor) and the government caved. The catholics should have taken a page from the Jews, who are better schooled and more used to dealing with hostile governments. They should have said a simple &quot;NO&quot;, and told their millions of constituents openly to defy the law, and dare the government to do something about it.

Much like us, the Catholics have a martyrdom strain in them too. All they need to spark them is the image of someone being dragged off to jail for contempt of court when he refuses to pay a fine for not paying for someone&#039;s birth control. Look how they rallied behind Mel Gibson when they (correctly) perceived anti-Christian bigoty behind negative reviews of his movie. If Obama would so much as DARE try to enforce that law, there would be pitchforks in the street marching. If you think I exaerage, you dont know the Christian world. These guys are not rabbis. If Pastor John Hagee wanted, he could fire up a crowd of thousands such that they would quite literally storm out the church hungry for blood.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The response of the Catholics did not fo far enough. They condemned the proposed ruling, to be sure, and called it disapointing, but they did not come out swinging. Case in point: When the Israeli government wanted to draft girls for the army, the rabbinic leadership literally said the response would be &#8220;over my dead body&#8221; (yeherg vi&#8217;al yavor) and the government caved. The catholics should have taken a page from the Jews, who are better schooled and more used to dealing with hostile governments. They should have said a simple &#8220;NO&#8221;, and told their millions of constituents openly to defy the law, and dare the government to do something about it.</p>
<p>Much like us, the Catholics have a martyrdom strain in them too. All they need to spark them is the image of someone being dragged off to jail for contempt of court when he refuses to pay a fine for not paying for someone&#8217;s birth control. Look how they rallied behind Mel Gibson when they (correctly) perceived anti-Christian bigoty behind negative reviews of his movie. If Obama would so much as DARE try to enforce that law, there would be pitchforks in the street marching. If you think I exaerage, you dont know the Christian world. These guys are not rabbis. If Pastor John Hagee wanted, he could fire up a crowd of thousands such that they would quite literally storm out the church hungry for blood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Avi</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1826</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Avi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Transfers of wealth from producers to non-producers...?&quot;  The medicare tax of 1.45% of earned income (wages, self-employment income) plus matching contributions by the employer (or the self-employed person) is levied equally.  Isn&#039;t this essentially a flat tax, advocated by so many conservatives.  The FICA (Federal Insurance Contributory Act) is levied at 6.2% with matching by the employer (or self-employed person) but there is a cap which is adjusted usually annually.  The cap for 2012 is $110,100.  While this may appear to be a flat tax, it isn&#039;t.  Isn&#039;t is fair to say the bulk of rich people earn a lot more than that.  Thus, essentially it is a regressive tax, so it is really unfair to the middle classes.  Again, the higher the tax you pay, the higher the ultimate benefit to you.  Some of it is put aside for the disabled and survivors of deceased.  Certainly, the longer you live and collect, the better the benefit is to you.  I know of many beneficiaries, including a lot of my clients, who are barely getting by or not even getting by due to their social security benefits, which they paid for.  There certainly are people who are not really eligible to collect but do so fraudently, but are you going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Unfortunately, not enough people put away enough money to keep them afloat in retirement.  Today it is more difficult than ever, with the minuscule earnings any kind of safe investments pay.  Plus, so many of your &quot;wealthy elderly&quot;  end up using their entire portfolio when health problems surface.

Since when was the tax system designed to give back to the taxpayers dollar for dollar for what they paid in.  If that is the policy, why not just eliminate taxes and whoever can afford services will pay for them and those who cannot will do without.  Mrs. Smith, your adorable daughter is being registered now for school.  She wil be put in the 3 hour program and not the full day 6 hour program because our records show that your family pays only half the average tax rate in this jurisdiction.  Mr. Jones, we can collect garbage from your home only 2 days per instead of 4 because you don&#039;t pay enough taxes to justify it.  Mr. Eisenhower, we know that you were a hero in WWII and served your country well, but now that you are 98 years old and not paying any taxes at all, you can&#039;t use our library.  Wait, here&#039;s a letter from the government where they gave full benefits:

Dear Messrs. Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, GM, etc.

We are aware that through your negligence, cheating and smug attitudes, you have brought our economy to its knees, making it the worse recession since the great depression.  Even though you have accumulated obscene windfalls from your activities, you are too big to fail and we won&#039;t ask you to dig into your own pockets to restore your profitability.  Accordingly, we are slashing benefits to the elderly, disabled and even the middle class taxpayers, so we will be saving enormous amounts of money.  We will even have the government go further and further into unconscionable debt just so we can spend close to $1 trillion dollars to bail you out.  Get back on your feet and then continue ripping off the public like you have been doing all these years.

Sincerely,

Selected president bush and &quot;president&#039; cheney

P.S.:  We know that the opposition party will get elected in the next generation and we&#039;ll keep blaming them so eventually we will get back into power.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Transfers of wealth from producers to non-producers&#8230;?&#8221;  The medicare tax of 1.45% of earned income (wages, self-employment income) plus matching contributions by the employer (or the self-employed person) is levied equally.  Isn&#8217;t this essentially a flat tax, advocated by so many conservatives.  The FICA (Federal Insurance Contributory Act) is levied at 6.2% with matching by the employer (or self-employed person) but there is a cap which is adjusted usually annually.  The cap for 2012 is $110,100.  While this may appear to be a flat tax, it isn&#8217;t.  Isn&#8217;t is fair to say the bulk of rich people earn a lot more than that.  Thus, essentially it is a regressive tax, so it is really unfair to the middle classes.  Again, the higher the tax you pay, the higher the ultimate benefit to you.  Some of it is put aside for the disabled and survivors of deceased.  Certainly, the longer you live and collect, the better the benefit is to you.  I know of many beneficiaries, including a lot of my clients, who are barely getting by or not even getting by due to their social security benefits, which they paid for.  There certainly are people who are not really eligible to collect but do so fraudently, but are you going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Unfortunately, not enough people put away enough money to keep them afloat in retirement.  Today it is more difficult than ever, with the minuscule earnings any kind of safe investments pay.  Plus, so many of your &#8220;wealthy elderly&#8221;  end up using their entire portfolio when health problems surface.</p>
<p>Since when was the tax system designed to give back to the taxpayers dollar for dollar for what they paid in.  If that is the policy, why not just eliminate taxes and whoever can afford services will pay for them and those who cannot will do without.  Mrs. Smith, your adorable daughter is being registered now for school.  She wil be put in the 3 hour program and not the full day 6 hour program because our records show that your family pays only half the average tax rate in this jurisdiction.  Mr. Jones, we can collect garbage from your home only 2 days per instead of 4 because you don&#8217;t pay enough taxes to justify it.  Mr. Eisenhower, we know that you were a hero in WWII and served your country well, but now that you are 98 years old and not paying any taxes at all, you can&#8217;t use our library.  Wait, here&#8217;s a letter from the government where they gave full benefits:</p>
<p>Dear Messrs. Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, GM, etc.</p>
<p>We are aware that through your negligence, cheating and smug attitudes, you have brought our economy to its knees, making it the worse recession since the great depression.  Even though you have accumulated obscene windfalls from your activities, you are too big to fail and we won&#8217;t ask you to dig into your own pockets to restore your profitability.  Accordingly, we are slashing benefits to the elderly, disabled and even the middle class taxpayers, so we will be saving enormous amounts of money.  We will even have the government go further and further into unconscionable debt just so we can spend close to $1 trillion dollars to bail you out.  Get back on your feet and then continue ripping off the public like you have been doing all these years.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Selected president bush and &#8220;president&#8217; cheney</p>
<p>P.S.:  We know that the opposition party will get elected in the next generation and we&#8217;ll keep blaming them so eventually we will get back into power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Reuben Andreessen</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1822</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben Andreessen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rick Santorum has my vote. He is a strong friend of Israel having sponsored legislation putting sanctions on Iran and Syria.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick Santorum has my vote. He is a strong friend of Israel having sponsored legislation putting sanctions on Iran and Syria.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Canuck</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1810</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Canuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Insurance policies are voluntary, with premiums determined by actuarial risk.   SS and medicare are vote buying schemes which coerce transfers of wealth from producers to non-producers, and from young workers to their elders (who happen to be far wealthier on average).   All of these welfare programs are bankrupt, and kept going temporarily by massive debt, and the fact that the US dollar is still an international reserve currency.  To believe that the welfare state is compassionate is belied by the results of the welfare state - increased poverty, increased inequality, increased selfishness, decreased charity, decreased social cohesiveness, etc., etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Insurance policies are voluntary, with premiums determined by actuarial risk.   SS and medicare are vote buying schemes which coerce transfers of wealth from producers to non-producers, and from young workers to their elders (who happen to be far wealthier on average).   All of these welfare programs are bankrupt, and kept going temporarily by massive debt, and the fact that the US dollar is still an international reserve currency.  To believe that the welfare state is compassionate is belied by the results of the welfare state &#8211; increased poverty, increased inequality, increased selfishness, decreased charity, decreased social cohesiveness, etc., etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Avi</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1791</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Avi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Also, I can live with any of those three candidates as opposed to who we have in office now; however, I predict that any of those will have a failed presidency.  They are nothing special and the American people deserve a lot better.  Unfortunately, the really qualified people stay out of the race for the reason you mention, they would get pilloried.  Stories, true or false, would come out to taint them.  It&#039;s unfortunate we can&#039;t stick to the issues.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, I can live with any of those three candidates as opposed to who we have in office now; however, I predict that any of those will have a failed presidency.  They are nothing special and the American people deserve a lot better.  Unfortunately, the really qualified people stay out of the race for the reason you mention, they would get pilloried.  Stories, true or false, would come out to taint them.  It&#8217;s unfortunate we can&#8217;t stick to the issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Avi</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1790</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Avi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your statement about social security and medicare is still false.  It is an insurance program. In an insurance policy, some people pay one year&#039;s premiums and either they or their beneficiaries can collect in full while others pay for the full term of the policy and get nothing back.  You seem to forget that social security also pays benefits to the disabled and the young families of deceased.  It is not a pension plan.  As one who owns a CPA practice I have seen many instances where without the very modest payout of social security and medicare many people would have nothing at all.  You may say they should have put money aside but human nature being what it is they have not, then the government would be forced to pay real welfare benefits to keep these people off the streets.  Don&#039;t you have compassion for anybody?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your statement about social security and medicare is still false.  It is an insurance program. In an insurance policy, some people pay one year&#8217;s premiums and either they or their beneficiaries can collect in full while others pay for the full term of the policy and get nothing back.  You seem to forget that social security also pays benefits to the disabled and the young families of deceased.  It is not a pension plan.  As one who owns a CPA practice I have seen many instances where without the very modest payout of social security and medicare many people would have nothing at all.  You may say they should have put money aside but human nature being what it is they have not, then the government would be forced to pay real welfare benefits to keep these people off the streets.  Don&#8217;t you have compassion for anybody?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Rabbi</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1789</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rabbi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I say Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs because most people will never get back what they put in, and many who put in nothing get it anyway. If it wasn&#039;t meant to be a welfare program, then I could take my own money, set aside my pension, invest it as I wish, and live off the benefits.
Especially these days your statement rings false, because, like any good Madoff scheme, my money goes to pay back other people, with the hope and prayer that other people&#039;s money will be there to pay me off someday. But that is unlikely. The pols did break the law in raiding the SS trust fund and use it for regular budgetary needs, with an IOU placed somewhere. It is just not a crime because here the criminals themselves decide what a crime is. In any other pension setup, looting the money for current needs and planning to pay back the investors in the future IS a crime.
You shouldn&#039;t get discourage about the Republican candidates. Indeed, politics is a messy business, but all the &quot;great&quot; candidates who are not in the race would be pilloried if they were in the race.
I could live quite happily with a President Romney, a President Gingrich or a President Santorum, and in no particular order.
-RSP]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I say Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs because most people will never get back what they put in, and many who put in nothing get it anyway. If it wasn&#8217;t meant to be a welfare program, then I could take my own money, set aside my pension, invest it as I wish, and live off the benefits.<br />
Especially these days your statement rings false, because, like any good Madoff scheme, my money goes to pay back other people, with the hope and prayer that other people&#8217;s money will be there to pay me off someday. But that is unlikely. The pols did break the law in raiding the SS trust fund and use it for regular budgetary needs, with an IOU placed somewhere. It is just not a crime because here the criminals themselves decide what a crime is. In any other pension setup, looting the money for current needs and planning to pay back the investors in the future IS a crime.<br />
You shouldn&#8217;t get discourage about the Republican candidates. Indeed, politics is a messy business, but all the &#8220;great&#8221; candidates who are not in the race would be pilloried if they were in the race.<br />
I could live quite happily with a President Romney, a President Gingrich or a President Santorum, and in no particular order.<br />
-RSP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Newt Challenge by Avi</title>
		<link>http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/01/27/the-newt-challenge/#comment-1786</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Avi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rabbipruzansky.com/?p=1308#comment-1786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems you like the idea of a Gingrich presidency, one in which you predict would be fashioned after the uncontrollable Billy Martin.  Billy Martin certainly had talents but he was nothing more than a bully who liked to intimdate people. 

 You stated a major untruth in your post by saying the social security and medicare are welfare programs.  Take a look at your paycheck stub and you will see deductions for each of these programs, with your employer required to make matching contributions (the self-employed pay both ends).  This means that it is a plan that is funded by the beneficiaries, and definitely not welfare.  You should unequivocally retract this mistruth. In addition, Congress has (probably illegally) raided social security funds to divert them to the general budget.  While medicaid is more of an entitlement program, how would you solve the dilemma that so many unfortunate people find themselves in, particularly when they are elderly.  A typical secenario would be a person who worked hard his whole life, paid his taxes and all his other bills, accumulated somewhat of a portfolio, e.g., several hundred thousand dollars, and perhaps also his own home fully paid.  Then, a major illness strikes, wiping out all this person&#039;s hard-earned assets and forcing him for the first time in his life to turn to the government.  I&#039;m not sure what the answer is but I do know that it is a shame that this happens to people through no fault of their own.  Certainly, there are lazy, negligent people who milk the system and that is something the nation has to deal with.  

I am not excusing Obama for his spending ways, indeed he has come nowhere near solving the problems he inherited, even though he claimed he would.  Let&#039;s not forget where this &quot;borrow and spend, deficits don&#039;t matter&quot; policy got its start, from your neo-conservatives darling, none other than Ronald Reagan.  It reached its crescendo during the administration of selected president Bush.  &quot;President&quot; Cheney was quoted as saying Reagan proved deficits don&#039;t matter.  So, just like Billy Martin, the Republicans come in and create a wave of success, then offend a lot of voters, get kicked out of office, then blame the opposition for their own failures.

It is especially offensive when other Republicans attack Romney for being so rich.  Didn&#039;t he pursue the American dream and succeed beyond most people&#039;s dreams to become super-wealthy.  What&#039;s wrong with that!  If his business dealings led to downsizing in some companies, why is he criticized for only doing what was right for the companies to survive.  If there were too many employees for a company to survive, were they just supposed to continue in business while losing money just to save these jobs.  And yet these are Republicans who are criticizing him for that.  Didn&#039;t he help to create new business and therefore new jobs.

I am not so enamored of Romeny, and certainly less of the other candidates.  Rick Santorum states that when a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she should not get an abortion but should consider it as a gift from G-d.  Ron Paul is a bigot, anti-semite, etc. who is the only candidate running who I would not prefer to Obama.  Why aren&#039;t his real views out there in the open.  Isn&#039;t that more important than publicizing the statements of a woman who claimed to have had an affair with Herman Cain.  Where are the good Republican candidates to oppose the incompetent, unpopular incumbent in the White House. It is a sad state of affairs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems you like the idea of a Gingrich presidency, one in which you predict would be fashioned after the uncontrollable Billy Martin.  Billy Martin certainly had talents but he was nothing more than a bully who liked to intimdate people. </p>
<p> You stated a major untruth in your post by saying the social security and medicare are welfare programs.  Take a look at your paycheck stub and you will see deductions for each of these programs, with your employer required to make matching contributions (the self-employed pay both ends).  This means that it is a plan that is funded by the beneficiaries, and definitely not welfare.  You should unequivocally retract this mistruth. In addition, Congress has (probably illegally) raided social security funds to divert them to the general budget.  While medicaid is more of an entitlement program, how would you solve the dilemma that so many unfortunate people find themselves in, particularly when they are elderly.  A typical secenario would be a person who worked hard his whole life, paid his taxes and all his other bills, accumulated somewhat of a portfolio, e.g., several hundred thousand dollars, and perhaps also his own home fully paid.  Then, a major illness strikes, wiping out all this person&#8217;s hard-earned assets and forcing him for the first time in his life to turn to the government.  I&#8217;m not sure what the answer is but I do know that it is a shame that this happens to people through no fault of their own.  Certainly, there are lazy, negligent people who milk the system and that is something the nation has to deal with.  </p>
<p>I am not excusing Obama for his spending ways, indeed he has come nowhere near solving the problems he inherited, even though he claimed he would.  Let&#8217;s not forget where this &#8220;borrow and spend, deficits don&#8217;t matter&#8221; policy got its start, from your neo-conservatives darling, none other than Ronald Reagan.  It reached its crescendo during the administration of selected president Bush.  &#8220;President&#8221; Cheney was quoted as saying Reagan proved deficits don&#8217;t matter.  So, just like Billy Martin, the Republicans come in and create a wave of success, then offend a lot of voters, get kicked out of office, then blame the opposition for their own failures.</p>
<p>It is especially offensive when other Republicans attack Romney for being so rich.  Didn&#8217;t he pursue the American dream and succeed beyond most people&#8217;s dreams to become super-wealthy.  What&#8217;s wrong with that!  If his business dealings led to downsizing in some companies, why is he criticized for only doing what was right for the companies to survive.  If there were too many employees for a company to survive, were they just supposed to continue in business while losing money just to save these jobs.  And yet these are Republicans who are criticizing him for that.  Didn&#8217;t he help to create new business and therefore new jobs.</p>
<p>I am not so enamored of Romeny, and certainly less of the other candidates.  Rick Santorum states that when a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she should not get an abortion but should consider it as a gift from G-d.  Ron Paul is a bigot, anti-semite, etc. who is the only candidate running who I would not prefer to Obama.  Why aren&#8217;t his real views out there in the open.  Isn&#8217;t that more important than publicizing the statements of a woman who claimed to have had an affair with Herman Cain.  Where are the good Republican candidates to oppose the incompetent, unpopular incumbent in the White House. It is a sad state of affairs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

