PDA

View Full Version : Fix the national deficit


Pages : 1 [2]

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 10:09 AM
The "rich" already pay most of the tax burden, and increasing that burden will put a greater drag on economic growth. Economic growth is the key to raising real standards of living and self-sufficiency.

So, the correct answer was control the growth of spending, grow the economy, and watch the spending outlays line intersect with the revenue growth line at the federal level.

Everybody tends to want the same thing -- to accumulate enough property and wealth to have some control over their destiny, to be able to help their friends and family with tuition, housing, everything. To have enough property nest egg to be a sustainer of whatever they think is important (family, land, organizations, etc.)

So taxing the rich isn't the answer. The answer is how to keep growing to where everybody is "rich." We would almost be there now if the Social Security program was run like an honest 401(k) instead of big commie fund that takes 12% of everything you earn for life and then flushes it when you die.

In a society competing with the rest of the world, there can't be any "everyone is rich" Utopia. We need the rich to be the carrot, we need the middle class to be the average, and we need the poor to have a place to pile our waste. Everyone in America gets the opportunity to be.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 10:17 AM
It doesn't affect anything because all the major industries are running overseas. When a Chinese hot dog vendor opens up a new shop, of course America doesn't benefit. The only difference in the Chinese hot dog vendor and all our industries is that we USED to have those jobs and we STILL buy the products our industry used to make.

As for the second bolded part, people should be a part of society but nobody should be entirely dependent ON society. A society is necessary to protect the interests of everyone involved. There is no benefit to society as a whole to support those simply milking from the society. These bums working our society contribute as much to it as the owner of that Chinese hot dog stand I mentioned above. We don't give him a vote, why should they get one?

Start making the American Dream about contributing to society rather than maximizing what you can take from it and let's talk.


Well you can't just cut off people who are dependent on society. What about the handicapped? That is an easy example, but I mean, this is the purpose of social security. For the most part people on social security are past contributing to society and are in the "milking" phase. Same with Medicare and Medicade for people who cannot afford sufficient healthcare.

The worth of a life is more than just what they contribute to society, our social programs make that clear. By the way, you can argue that some of the richest in society actually harm society...wall street bankers in the last crash for example.

As for "bums working society and not contributing", I totally get not wanting to support them. But making cuts to entitlements won't just hurt those people.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 10:46 AM
Well you can't just cut off people who are dependent on society. What about the handicapped? That is an easy example, but I mean, this is the purpose of social security. For the most part people on social security are past contributing to society and are in the "milking" phase. Same with Medicare and Medicade for people who cannot afford sufficient healthcare.

The worth of a life is more than just what they contribute to society, our social programs make that clear. By the way, you can argue that some of the richest in society actually harm society...wall street bankers in the last crash for example.

As for "bums working society and not contributing", I totally get not wanting to support them. But making cuts to entitlements won't just hurt those people.

Well I'll take off my radical hat for just a second and play hypothetically reasonable. Those who are already dependent, you have to continue supporting. What you don't have to do though is pledge absolutely unlimited funds to do so. As a post I started here recently talked about, the government is current bound by its rules to pay $90k for a treatment of terminally ill cancer patients and the treatment only extends their life expectancy 4 months. There's a difference between kicking old granny to the curb because we're cheap and throwing taxpayer funds down the drain because we choose to avoid responsibility. That's the kinds of steps I think should be implemented. Do what you can to support as long as they're doing most of the work but if meds and hospital procedures are absolutely overwhelming, you have to try to reign it in.

Now, the radical side of me? F everybody. If you're old and don't have a reasonable retirement plan to pay for all those advanced procedures you want to extend your recliner-dependent life, make peace with your maker. Everyone's time comes eventually. Can't support your kids? Alright kids, say bye bye to mommy, she's about to take the hungry trek into the light. Can't get a job because you have a half dozen felonies and no education? Well, shucks, responsibility sure does come back to bite you in the darnedest of times, doesn't it? Deal with it and if you think you're gonna just steal from people to make a living, remember you're stealing from citizens who have a right to bear arms.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-09-2011, 01:05 PM
Gotta admit Senator Harry Reid and Obama is pretty good at one thing. Patting themselves on the back. Called the deal to cut ONE PERCENT from the 2011 federal budget “historic”. Just a bit short of the 43% OF CUTS needed to balance this very same budget. Senator, the only thing truly “historic” is this!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-09-2011, 01:38 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xwv5EbxXSmE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xwv5EbxXSmE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Gotta admit Senator Harry Reid and Obama is pretty good at one thing. Patting themselves on the back. Called the deal to cut ONE PERCENT from the 2011 federal budget “historic”. Just a bit short of the 43% OF CUTS needed to balance this very same budget. Senator, the only thing truly “historic” is this!

With regard to the chart:

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

So the very first very large red line was the last year of George W. Bush's budgets...It's not fair to attribute that to Obama.

Read this way, the graph could be interpreted: There was a surplus under Clinton. It was squandered by Bush with tax cuts and wars. Obama was left with the mess.

It seems that there are alot of mistruths that are distorting the true picture. If you hear something about the other side that is outrageous...should really probably check some facts yourself, and not just facts from people you always agree with.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-09-2011, 04:44 PM
With regard to the chart:

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

So the very first very large red line was the last year of George W. Bush's budgets...It's not fair to attribute that to Obama.

Read this way, the graph could be interpreted: There was a surplus under Clinton. It was squandered by Bush with tax cuts and wars. Obama was left with the mess.

It seems that there are alot of mistruths that are distorting the true picture. If you hear something about the other side that is outrageous...should really probably check some facts yourself, and not just facts from people you always agree with.
Is the best you got? Come back to me when you have some truth.

Jay3
04-09-2011, 04:54 PM
In a society competing with the rest of the world, there can't be any "everyone is rich" Utopia. We need the rich to be the carrot, we need the middle class to be the average, and we need the poor to have a place to pile our waste. Everyone in America gets the opportunity to be.

Everybody can't have the same amount of money, but almost everyone can enjoy a standard of living that would be considered "rich" in most of the world (and places like Haiti).

Enough food to eat, shelter, air conditioning, transportation, health care, some expenditures on things you like (such as Broncos tickets and an internet-connected computer :thumbsup:)

These things are attainable in a productive and growing market economy. There is an obsession with the so-called "distribution" of wealth, but the idea that everybody would have the same amount of stuff is laughable or frightening, take your pick.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 05:04 PM
Don't let facts get in the way of the argument...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fact-checker-rep-paul-ryans-budget-blueprint/2011/04/09/AF7lmM9C_story.html

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 05:13 PM
With regard to the chart:

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

So the very first very large red line was the last year of George W. Bush's budgets...It's not fair to attribute that to Obama.

Read this way, the graph could be interpreted: There was a surplus under Clinton. It was squandered by Bush with tax cuts and wars. Obama was left with the mess.

It seems that there are alot of mistruths that are distorting the true picture. If you hear something about the other side that is outrageous...should really probably check some facts yourself, and not just facts from people you always agree with.

Heh... each time I try to read your post, all I get is "snaffle, raffle, Bush really sucked and then Obama copied every one of his policies, snaffle raffle!"

Blame all you want but Obama showed he had no spine when those treasured Bush tax cuts were expiring and Obama extended them. He could've drawn down the wars much faster but he's moved as slow as we could've expected Mccain to do, he could've let the tax cuts expire, he could've (to concede your last post, just for fun) done SOMETHING about the deficit spending, etc. but he just continued or expanded on those Bush policies everyone thinks were complete failures. THEN, you come in here and try to say it's dishonest to blame that first year on Obama? Who f'ing cares about that first year? At best he's an absolute continuation of Bush.

But, hey, at least he got DADT repealed. That'll surely go down in his legacy.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 05:16 PM
Everybody can't have the same amount of money, but almost everyone can enjoy a standard of living that would be considered "rich" in most of the world (and places like Haiti).

Enough food to eat, shelter, air conditioning, transportation, health care, some expenditures on things you like (such as Broncos tickets and an internet-connected computer :thumbsup:)

These things are attainable in a productive and growing market economy. There is an obsession with the so-called "distribution" of wealth, but the idea that everybody would have the same amount of stuff is laughable or frightening, take your pick.

Absolutely anyone can be rich compared to Haiti in today's world. Unless you ascribe to the "whitey's holding 'em down!" theory, there's no hurdle hard work and education can't get you over in today's society. I don't get what needs changed about that situation.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 05:19 PM
Heh... each time I try to read your post, all I get is "snaffle, raffle, Bush really sucked and then Obama copied every one of his policies, snaffle raffle!"

Blame all you want but Obama showed he had no spine when those treasured Bush tax cuts were expiring and Obama extended them. He could've drawn down the wars much faster but he's moved as slow as we could've expected Mccain to do, he could've let the tax cuts expire, he could've (to concede your last post, just for fun) done SOMETHING about the deficit spending, etc. but he just continued or expanded on those Bush policies everyone thinks were complete failures. THEN, you come in here and try to say it's dishonest to blame that first year on Obama? Who f'ing cares about that first year? At best he's an absolute continuation of Bush.

But, hey, at least he got DADT repealed. That'll surely go down in his legacy.


Why do you get that from my post? The chart was misleading and I pointed out why. If you base your conclusions on false assumptions, your conclusions are suspect.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 05:22 PM
Is the best you got? Come back to me when you have some truth.

Bro that last post was total truth. I pointed out the last line that was attributed to Obama was actually a line from Bush.. So the conclusion you draw from the chart changes pretty significantly.

I'm not trying to change your ideology, I think the concept of small government and small taxes is a sound one.

I'm just trying to point out deception when I see it.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 05:35 PM
Why do you get that from my post? The chart was misleading and I pointed out why. If you base your conclusions on false assumptions, your conclusions are suspect.

This line summed up your post and seeing as I don't know you well enough to think otherwise, I assume this sums up your stance:



Read this way, the graph could be interpreted: There was a surplus under Clinton. It was squandered by Bush with tax cuts and wars. Obama was left with the mess.


You remove responsibility from Obama in that statement. You play the "Aww, shucks, look what he had to work with" when everything you blame Bush for doing, Obama continued or expanded. Unless you can call out Obama for the same things he does that Bush did, don't try to blame anything on Bush.

Remember, Congress approved Bush's wars. Obama started one himself, continued Bush's, and didn't get anyone's approval. Yeah, Obama is much better.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 05:40 PM
This line summed up your post and seeing as I don't know you well enough to think otherwise, I assume this sums up your stance:



You remove responsibility from Obama in that statement. You play the "Aww, shucks, look what he had to work with" when everything you blame Bush for doing, Obama continued or expanded. Unless you can call out Obama for the same things he does that Bush did, don't try to blame anything on Bush.

Remember, Congress approved Bush's wars. Obama started one himself, continued Bush's, and didn't get anyone's approval. Yeah, Obama is much better.

You realize that action in Libya has largely been turned over to NATO... there are more French forces over there than US forces.

DarkHorse30
04-09-2011, 05:43 PM
drill drill drill......quit printing money.....quit taking vacations when YOU are the president, and YOU and your minions have been wrecking this economy.

Quit saying that the seniors aren't going to get their checks when you know it's a lie......quit lying.......quit saying ONE thing in a campaign to get elected president and then DOING the opposite.

IT'S THE FRIGGIN' ECONOMY, YOU STUPID HOSEBAG EXCUSE FOR A PRESIDENT. AT LEAST PRETEND THAT YOU CARE ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TAKING VACATIONS AND CARRYING THE WATER FOR IDIOTS LIKE SOROS WHO PAID FOR YOUR ELECTION.

DRILL DRILL DRILL, hire new drillers, open more area for drilling, take back the country from the enviro-nazis that apparently don't need jobs.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 05:52 PM
You realize that action in Libya has largely been turned over to NATO... there are more French forces over there than US forces.

The point was more toward the blame being entirely on Bush for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when congress heavily approved both. The double standard is Bush got approval from Congress while Obama can decide all by himself to direct the bombing of a foreign country and that's acceptable.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 07:03 PM
This line summed up your post and seeing as I don't know you well enough to think otherwise, I assume this sums up your stance:



You remove responsibility from Obama in that statement. You play the "Aww, shucks, look what he had to work with" when everything you blame Bush for doing, Obama continued or expanded. Unless you can call out Obama for the same things he does that Bush did, don't try to blame anything on Bush.

Remember, Congress approved Bush's wars. Obama started one himself, continued Bush's, and didn't get anyone's approval. Yeah, Obama is much better.

The chart showed the deficit tripling under Obama, which is not what happened. I was just indicating that the deficit actually more than tripled under Bush, and then remained at the same huge levels for the two years Obama made the budget.

I do not think Obama is blameless. But to say he created the situation is disingenuous. To say he is continuing the situation, is probably true.

In all the arguments here it seems people just want the other side to seem like complete morons and the solution is so obvious if only the conservatives/liberals would have their way.

I don't think it is anywhere near that easy, and I think if everyone acknowledges the validity at the core of the other sides argument it will help things.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 07:07 PM
In my opinion, Bacon is delicious.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 07:11 PM
I like Bacon.

I also like bacon, but you have to admit, there are people on the other side who do not enjoy bacon. And their arguments have merit because people's tastebuds are all different. Also, there are sometimes religious restrictions as to whether a person is allowed to eat bacon.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 07:13 PM
I also like bacon, but you have to admit, there are people on the other side who do not enjoy bacon. And their arguments have merit because people's tastebuds are all different. Also, there are sometimes religious restrictions as to whether a person is allowed to eat bacon.

I was introduced to bacon by my Jewish friend.

Anyone who doesn't think bacon is delicious is misinformed and uneducated and needs to change their opinion.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 07:21 PM
I was introduced to bacon by my Jewish friend.

Anyone who doesn't think bacon is delicious is misinformed and uneducated and needs to change their opinion.


Well don't use a blanket term like "anyone". There are several hypotheticals where I think disliking bacon would be justified. For instance, what if a person worked their whole life in a hog slaughtering plant? Or, what if as a child you had an awful pig-related accident?

Bronco Vixen
04-09-2011, 07:22 PM
‎"Balance the budget but don't take away [that thing I like and/or depend on for cash]!" - Americans

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 07:45 PM
Well don't use a blanket term like "anyone". There are several hypotheticals where I think disliking bacon would be justified. For instance, what if a person worked their whole life in a hog slaughtering plant? Or, what if as a child you had an awful pig-related accident?

This I can understand. A psychological predisposition to not liking bacon. But the fact of the matter is that:

Saturated fat + salt + crunchy texture = taste bud explosion.

Swineian economics really isn't debatable any more. It's really more of a fact.

mhgaffney
04-09-2011, 07:47 PM
I was introduced to bacon by my Jewish friend.

Anyone who doesn't think bacon is delicious is misinformed and uneducated and needs to change their opinion.

Bacon is less bad than beef.

My friend in Oakland who specializes in canning tells me the hog feed is better than with beeves -- fewer chemicals and hormones.

mhgaffney
04-09-2011, 07:52 PM
The saturated fat scare is bull shyte. Nothing wrong with butter as food -- so long as it is not contaminated with cesium 137 -- or other radio nuclides.

Given this proviso -- butter is good fat Olive oil is also very good. Avoid Canola, corn oil and all of the artificial margarines. They do not digest well -- and cause the body to store fat instead of burning it.

Burning fat is good. Storing it is not so good.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 07:59 PM
The saturated fat scare is bull shyte. Nothing wrong with butter as food -- so long as it is not contaminated with cesium 137 -- or other radio nuclides.

Given this proviso -- butter is good fat Olive oil is also very good. Avoid Canola, corn oil and all of the artificial margarines. They do not digest well -- and cause the body to store fat instead of burning it.

Burning fat is good. Storing it is not so good.

I agree. When I was CFL (command fitness leader at NAS Brunswick) I told all the FEP Sailors (Fitness Enhancement Program - basically the people who were getting too fat to stay in the Navy) that the only healthy way to lose weight was burning off the calories they consume. That said, I had most of those kids on some sort of diet program. One of my coworkers used to tell me about how one of the FEP Sailors would always sneak into her office (she brought donuts in every day) and whisper to her, asking for one - afraid that I would hear, haha.

But yeah, It's called garbage loading. You can eat as much fat, sodium, calories and carbs as you want. In fact, it's healthy to do so... eating these things and then burning them off is how you stay healthy.

TonyR
04-09-2011, 07:59 PM
...he could've let the tax cuts expire...

Sure. But is that the thing to do in the middle of massive economic upheaval? And if I'm not mistaken Obama and the Dems wanted to let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire but caved like the pussies they are to the GOP to get the deal done. My point being that you really can't take the side of the GOP on this one because they got what they wanted, and the Dems didn't. And what's funny is that the GOP, including Ryan's plan, won't put tax increases on the table even now. But it's all Obama's fault. Sigh.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 08:01 PM
Sure. But is that the thing to do in the middle of massive economic upheaval? And if I'm not mistaken Obama and the Dems wanted to let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire but caved like the pussies they are to the GOP to get the deal done. My point being that you really can't take the side of the GOP on this one because they got what they wanted, and the Dems didn't. And what's funny is that the GOP, including Ryan's plan, won't put tax increases even now. But it's all Obama's fault. Sigh.

Yeah, but both Ryan and Obama like Bacon, so there's that.

Missouribronc
04-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Sure. But is that the thing to do in the middle of massive economic upheaval? And if I'm not mistaken Obama and the Dems wanted to let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire but caved like the pussies they are to the GOP to get the deal done. My point being that you really can't take the side of the GOP on this one because they got what they wanted, and the Dems didn't. And what's funny is that the GOP, including Ryan's plan, won't put tax increases on the table even now. But it's all Obama's fault. Sigh.

The shouldn't allow the tax cuts. They should make cuts altogether.

The more profit, the more taxes. If the executives get a raise, then, they, as individuals pay more taxes. I think that gets lost in all of this.

ScottXray
04-09-2011, 09:14 PM
By the way, a visualization is worth 10,000 words. Play around with this for a bit:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners

I believe this indicates the percentage of the total collected federal taxes that each group paid ...NOT the amount they pay.

When you consider the fact that the top 1% of income earners control over 50% of the total wealth of this country, and the top 5% over 70% of the total wealth
( in other words the total amount of money made or spent) then you see that they are actually not paying their fair share. They are wealthy enough to use the numerous loopholes and dodges that allow them to avoid the taxes they should pay.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 09:29 PM
HAHA, the Heritage foundation... now that's a reliable source.

ScottXray
04-09-2011, 10:19 PM
Its the old adage...with numbers and pretty charts and graphs you can make
it LOOK like anything you want. The top 10% pay 71% of all federal taxes...(but they control about 90% of the total wealth).

Progressive taxes suck but you cant tax everyone at the same rate, because some can't afford even a minimal amount without being forced onto the street or
into toal poverty. There should be a basic minimum income that everyone is allowed tax free, and then a flat tax on income over that amount. Since children
eventually will grow up to (hopefully) become income producers you have to increase the miinimum if people have them. And a child with "special needs" is also going to cost more to maintain.
There is no easy answer.

Maybe we should institute a policy of a 4 person family. Couples can only deduct 2 other deductions for children....You can have more...but no deduction...just a personal choice to live below the poverty line if you desire...and no federal or state assistance to any mother with over 2 children.

Lets make it even fairer....If you have a third child but don't want to raise it you can give it to the government. They will educate and raise it to age 19 , then it can do a term of 15 years service in whatever arm of the government the government sees fit ( Army, navy, cannon fodder, civil service, police force ( by then we'll need a federal police force)), doing whatever. At the end of the 15 years it becomes a free citizen, having paid it's debt to society for being born. Other than room and board, clothing and medical treatment it receives no pay, but is eligible for free college tuition in its first 5 years of "citizenship". After that it can do whatever...

Sound good?
And by the way I am being facetious...just illustrating that there are way too many obstacles to a true flat tax for everyone, and NO system will be "fair".

To me the major problem in the tax structure is not the rich (Although they should pay their full share according to the amount of the countries total wealth and income) but the fact that most major corporations are not paying their fair share, if anything. When corporations are only paying 6% of the the total federal taxes something is drastically wrong. They want to do business here.. so they should pay a rate that is fair for the benefit and profits they receive by doing so.

But corporations and their influence is entirely another line of what is wrong with the country.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 10:28 PM
I agree with you. Just saying the Heritage Foundation might have even misrepresented the facts against your argument.

But on second thought, hard data doesn't lie... it's a good point that the top 1 percent own 90 percent of the wealth but only account for 72 percent of tax revenue.

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 10:31 PM
That letting the government raise children idea is bat**** crazy though.

ScottXray
04-09-2011, 10:52 PM
That letting the government raise children idea is bat**** crazy though.

If the corporations aren't brought in line I think that we might start seeing some of that "bat shyt crazy " stuff here...They would love nothing better than to have a source of "free " labor wage slaves to control...its the whole kind of thing they are pushing us toward. Rights ..for Workers? Bat shyt crazy idea !

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 10:53 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1&hp

Mogulseeker
04-09-2011, 10:54 PM
But what about tax cuts for bacon consumption?

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 11:10 PM
In my very crazy personal opinion, this is all the fault of overpopulation. If people still had "go back home and be a farmer" as an option, they don't have to buy corporate products, they don't have to subject themselves to the corporate conditions, etc. We've populated this planet to the point that the ONLY way to keep anything going is to streamline everything.

Based off the first chart I pulled up on Wikipedia, we had somewhere around 110 million people in the 20s and 30s. Things like unions had set the place for the American people to thrive. By the 50s, we were up around 150 million. Here we are, 60 years later, and we've DOUBLED that population. What are we supposed to do with all these people? Are you surprised that unless we're treated like chickens on a farm, we can't find something for everyone to do?

This is why I don't ever support going out of our way to save old people, poor people, etc. There's only so many people that can live comfortably on this planet. Why keep wasting valuable resources on those who have already lived their life or in the case of some, refuse to do the basics to support themselves?

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 11:14 PM
Sure. But is that the thing to do in the middle of massive economic upheaval? And if I'm not mistaken Obama and the Dems wanted to let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire but caved like the pussies they are to the GOP to get the deal done. My point being that you really can't take the side of the GOP on this one because they got what they wanted, and the Dems didn't. And what's funny is that the GOP, including Ryan's plan, won't put tax increases on the table even now. But it's all Obama's fault. Sigh.

Is there ever a time to negatively impact the economy? That is, of course, if you're agreeing that taxing the rich negatively impacts the economy which I thought was fiercely denied.

And the fact that Obama caved to the GOP can be blamed on the GOP? Just like the parents of those 200 lb 4 year olds on Oprah try to say "but the kid wanted food". Once Obama signed off on those cuts, he adopted them to make them all his own. Whether it be because the economy needed them or because rich people scream too loud, he extended those cuts. You can't criticize someone for doing something and then repeat what they do. There's a word for that...

chadta
04-10-2011, 04:23 AM
You can't criticize someone for doing something and then repeat what they do. There's a word for that...

In Canada that word is Liberal.

Jay3
04-10-2011, 04:29 AM
In my very crazy personal opinion, this is all the fault of overpopulation. If people still had "go back home and be a farmer" as an option, they don't have to buy corporate products,

So it does come back down to the bacon issue.

Basically, everyone should tend enough hogs to keep themselves flowing in bacon. If we did that, all of the numbers would add up.

Plus, in this plan we get bacon.

chadta
04-10-2011, 05:02 AM
So it does come back down to the bacon issue.

Basically, everyone should tend enough hogs to keep themselves flowing in bacon. If we did that, all of the numbers would add up.

Plus, in this plan we get bacon.


How do i vote for you ?

but if everybody had bacon would we still need these

salt
http://www.baconsalt.com/

mayo
http://www.jdfoods.net/products/baconnaise.php

popcorn
http://www.jdfoods.net/products/baconpop.php

ranch
http://www.jdfoods.net/products/baconranch.php

some of those may sound cool, but trust me they arent

the mmvelopes sound like an awesome idea tho
http://www.jdfoods.net/products/mmmvelopes.php

Mogulseeker
04-10-2011, 11:08 AM
More:

Bacon Soda: http://www.jonessoda.com/wordpress/uncategorized/bacon-soda-its-here/

Bacon Beer: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/food-for-men/smoked-beers-072010

Bacon Vodka: http://www.bakonvodka.com/

Or, I like this idea:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ui7Z6kOO4Ww/R_BNg-2ZuiI/AAAAAAAAACU/IW3KydDWto0/s1600-h/bacon.jpg

Even better:

http://kflyfm.com/images/53583.jpg

Mogulseeker
04-10-2011, 11:12 AM
On second thought, that last one is kinda gross... dead animal flesh isn't really a turn on.

http://www.delish.com/food-fun/weird-bacon-products

Bacon can be turned into anything... we need to raise more of it.

Jay3
04-10-2011, 12:54 PM
Hilarious Jim Gaffigan bit on bacon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaK9bjLy3v4

Boomhauer
04-10-2011, 01:28 PM
Here's a good start for the budget, but must be more in-depth to address US debt.

Cut Federal workforce, including civilian, contractors and military
Consolidate agencies to eliminate redundant management and programs
Reduce payments of SS to the wealthy and all non-DOD pensions
Repeal Obamacare and replace it with effective Healthcare reform
Overhaul the tax code, eliminating breaks and loopholes

Mogulseeker
04-10-2011, 01:57 PM
Here's a good start for the budget, but must be more in-depth to address US debt.

Cut Federal workforce, including civilian, contractors and military
Consolidate agencies to eliminate redundant management and programs
Reduce payments of SS to the wealthy and all non-DOD pensions
Repeal Obamacare and replace it with effective Healthcare reform
Overhaul the tax code, eliminating breaks and loopholes

Do not cut the federal workforce.... cut the industrial complex and no-bid contracts - this increases competition AND saves the government a hell of a lot of money.

I agree with consolidating agencies... I think we should re-merge the DOD and DOHS - but all this wont save that much money.

I totally agree with reducing SS payments. It's ****ing retarded that I have to pay some baby boomers retirement.

Obamacare will save more money than it costs. Its not perfect, but repealing it will cost about $1.4 trillion. I still like the public option.

The final thing is what everybody, regardless of party, wants. It's much easier said than done, though.

pricejj
04-10-2011, 06:41 PM
Obamacare will save more money than it costs. Its not perfect, but repealing it will cost about $1.4 trillion.
.

LOL

You wish...

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since Obamacare was shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the FORMER Democrat super-majority in congress.

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Arkie
04-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Congress can't even cut spending for just one year! It will take more than one year of cuts, but they'll pat their own backs if they manage to do it for one year even if it only brings us down to 2009 levels.
http://www.briefing.com/common/images/content/pagecontent/DailyColumns/2010030309421510.03.02.FED.SPND.JPG

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 06:06 AM
You can see where the baby boomers started winning political office.

DarkHorse30
04-11-2011, 09:28 AM
LOL

You wish...

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since Obamacare was shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the FORMER Democrat super-majority in congress.

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

I had GREAT insurance plan before Obamacare.....and ALL of my costs went up after they did their dirty deed.

The dems are doing a HUGE bait and switch now, granting waivers to all their buddies, and making the rest of us eat bat ****. That's what happens when the gov't runs things, they SCREW IT UP.

The road to America's hell is paved with democratic good intentions......

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 09:30 AM
I have less coverage for more money since Obamacare was passed.

Chris
04-11-2011, 09:48 AM
I had GREAT insurance plan before Obamacare.....and ALL of my costs went up after they did their dirty deed.

The dems are doing a HUGE bait and switch now, granting waivers to all their buddies, and making the rest of us eat bat ****. That's what happens when the gov't runs things, they SCREW IT UP.

The road to America's hell is paved with democratic good intentions......

We should copy the NHS in England then. They seem to get it right.

pricejj
04-11-2011, 09:56 AM
We should copy the NHS in England then. They seem to get it right.

Nope. Due to healtchare spending, England is in worse debt than the U.S. (without the military expenditures). As are all the SOCIALIST European countries except Germany.

...England has THE HIGHEST individual income tax rate in the world (52%) for those making over $57k a year.

zowie!

The solution is a fiscally conservative approach, which limits federal government involvement in a private-sector industry, thus preventing skyrocketing prices.

1. Non-Profit Health Insurance.
2. Make available tax-free HSA's for everyone (through banks), so the individual can plan and save.
3. Make available High Deductible Catastrophic Insurance at the state level, non-mandatory.
4. Regulate Medicaid for Fraud Waste & Abuse.
5. Allow patient sign-off, for Physician Liability Waiver (for reduced pricing).
6. Institute federal block grant funding to Medicare and Medicaid (as Paul Ryan proposed).
7. Those who refuse to pay for their own healthcare (not paying for hospital bills) are automatically enrolled in state plan.

...*** Non-Profit Auto Insurance would be nice also.


:thanku:

Chris
04-11-2011, 01:21 PM
Price what is the German system like?

TonyR
04-11-2011, 01:32 PM
I had GREAT insurance plan before Obamacare.....and ALL of my costs went up after they did their dirty deed.


I'd be willing to bet your costs went up almost every year before Obamacare was passed as well.

Cito Pelon
04-11-2011, 01:43 PM
It's interesting that the top tax rate is 35%. My tax rate is 28%.

So, let's compare a guy that earns $1,000,000 in a year to me at $100,000 a year.

The million guy is taxed at 35%. The 100k guy is taxed at 28%.

A guy that earns TEN TIMES my 100k/yr income is taxed only .7% above my tax rate.

It's amazing some people think that's OK.

Beantown Bronco
04-11-2011, 01:51 PM
I think you mean 7%, not .7%.

pricejj
04-11-2011, 02:17 PM
It's interesting that the top tax rate is 35%. My tax rate is 28%.

So, let's compare a guy that earns $1,000,000 in a year to me at $100,000 a year.

The million guy is taxed at 35%. The 100k guy is taxed at 28%.

A guy that earns TEN TIMES my 100k/yr income is taxed only .7% above my tax rate.

It's amazing some people think that's OK.

All the federal income tax systems in developed countries have the upper tax rate set at $120k-$150k for individual. There is no millionaire tax rate (that I know of).

Why do you want the U.S. to do it?

???

When the Democrat's are talking about heavily taxing the upper wage earners...
they mean YOU.

pricejj
04-11-2011, 02:26 PM
I'd be willing to bet your costs went up almost every year before Obamacare was passed as well.

So that makes Obamacare....

Uhh
CRAPTASTIC?



...and unconstitutional.
The healthcare solution could be very simple, as I stated in an earlier post.

Arkie
04-11-2011, 02:46 PM
It's interesting that the top tax rate is 35%. My tax rate is 28%.

So, let's compare a guy that earns $1,000,000 in a year to me at $100,000 a year.

The million guy is taxed at 35%. The 100k guy is taxed at 28%.

A guy that earns TEN TIMES my 100k/yr income is taxed only .7% above my tax rate.

It's amazing some people think that's OK.

So, he pays $350,000 in taxes. You pay $28,000. He's paying 12.5x more than you, yet he only makes 10x your income.

pricejj
04-11-2011, 02:48 PM
It's interesting that the top tax rate is 35%. My tax rate is 28%.

So, let's compare a guy that earns $1,000,000 in a year to me at $100,000 a year.

The million guy is taxed at 35%. The 100k guy is taxed at 28%.

A guy that earns TEN TIMES my 100k/yr income is taxed only .7% above my tax rate.

It's amazing some people think that's OK.

Also keep in mind that it is a progressive tax. You are only taxed 28% on the money you make over the 25% threshold.

This means the guy making $1,000,000 pays about $332,000 in FIT.
You pay about $17,000.

You think that is unfair to you?

Hilarious!

(Sorry Arkie, it's a progressive tax. The millionaire actually pays about 19.5X more.)

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-12-2011, 03:44 PM
An Adult look at the GOP Budget of Doom:

Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported
Plan’s $4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Yield Just $155 Billion in Deficit Reduction

By James R. Horney

April 8, 2011

Even some critics of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan have praised his “courage” and his willingnes<wbr>­s to make “hard choices” to address looming deficits. But, upon closer inspection<wbr>­, Chairman Ryan’s widely reported claim that his plan produces $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction proves illusory. In fact, the numbers in his plan show that his budget produces just $155 billion in real deficit reduction over ten years (see graph).

That means that, despite proposing $4.3 trillion in what would be the most severe and wrenching budget cuts in U.S. history — two-thirds of which would come from programs for people of low or moderate incomes — the plan barely reduces deficits at all over the next decade. That’s because his budget cuts are offset by $4.2 trillion in tax cuts that would go disproport<wbr>­ionately to those at the top. In essence, at least for the next decade, this plan is far less a blueprint for addressing deficits and far more a proposal to redistribu<wbr>­te large amounts of resources from those at the bottom to those at the top.

http://www<wbr>­.cbpp.org/<wbr>­cms/index.<wbr>­cfm?fa=vie<wbr>­w&id=3458 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3458)

Yay! More trickle down economics that don't work!

Arkie
04-12-2011, 04:03 PM
An Adult look at the GOP Budget of Doom:

Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported
Plan’s $4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Yield Just $155 Billion in Deficit Reduction

By James R. Horney

April 8, 2011

Even some critics of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan have praised his “courage” and his willingnes<wbr>­s to make “hard choices” to address looming deficits. But, upon closer inspection<wbr>­, Chairman Ryan’s widely reported claim that his plan produces $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction proves illusory. In fact, the numbers in his plan show that his budget produces just $155 billion in real deficit reduction over ten years (see graph).

That means that, despite proposing $4.3 trillion in what would be the most severe and wrenching budget cuts in U.S. history — two-thirds of which would come from programs for people of low or moderate incomes — the plan barely reduces deficits at all over the next decade. That’s because his budget cuts are offset by $4.2 trillion in tax cuts that would go disproport<wbr>­ionately to those at the top. In essence, at least for the next decade, this plan is far less a blueprint for addressing deficits and far more a proposal to redistribu<wbr>­te large amounts of resources from those at the bottom to those at the top.

http://www<wbr>­.cbpp.org/<wbr>­cms/index.<wbr>­cfm?fa=vie<wbr>­w&id=3458 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3458)

Yay! More trickle down economics that don't work!

Nothing will work for the ever-increasing spending! We're maxed out on revenue. We just can't keep demanding people pay more than their fair share to try and keep up with this insanity. :sickortir

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4843156595_1e23df4423.jpg

Chris
04-12-2011, 04:08 PM
The post-Bush I GOP is not a party of the people. Both parties are tied to money but the GOP uses American individualism / anti-government sentiment as an excuse not to tax the richest Americans fairly.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-12-2011, 04:09 PM
Arkie, you want to fix half the problem, that's fine. It won't do you any good.

You want to fix the actual problem, you realize that there are two problems within. 1. Spending is too high. Granted. Cutting some is a good start. 2. Revenue is too low. Period.

In the chart you posted, revenue was constantly increasing... until 2000, when the Bush Tax Cuts took effect. We have more people in this country now than we did then, we have more expenses. That's how it works. And yet somehow, revenue DROPPED under President Bush, from where we had a surplus to where we have a deficit.

Simply astounding that we refuse to treat this as a two-front problem.

Arkie
04-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Arkie, you want to fix half the problem, that's fine. It won't do you any good.

You want to fix the actual problem, you realize that there are two problems within. 1. Spending is too high. Granted. Cutting some is a good start. 2. Revenue is too low. Period.

In the chart you posted, revenue was constantly increasing... until 2000, when the Bush Tax Cuts took effect. We have more people in this country now than we did then, we have more expenses. That's how it works. And yet somehow, revenue DROPPED under President Bush, from where we had a surplus to where we have a deficit.

Simply astounding that we refuse to treat this as a two-front problem.

I understand that revenue dropped during the recessions and increased during the expansion from 2003-07. That's how it works despite the tax rate. Higher tax rates lower GDP, so you're getting a bigger slice from a smaller pie. It comes out about the same. The spending side, on the other hand, steadily goes up. That's insanity, or just the short term vision of politicians trying to get re-elected. It doesn't matter what we do on the revenue side. We can completely cut all of our defense spending, and entitlements will still overcome our revenue in the near future.

gunns
04-12-2011, 06:41 PM
I had GREAT insurance plan before Obamacare.....and ALL of my costs went up after they did their dirty deed.

The dems are doing a HUGE bait and switch now, granting waivers to all their buddies, and making the rest of us eat bat ****. That's what happens when the gov't runs things, they SCREW IT UP.

The road to America's hell is paved with democratic good intentions......

Originally Posted by pricejj


You wish...

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since Obamacare was shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the FORMER Democrat super-majority in congress.

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

You guys are hilarious. First of all Obamacare, the majority of the bill, doesn't go into effect until 2014. The only real parts of it that have gone into effect are children up to 26, married or not, can be on your insurance. The second I'm not sure of but I believe is the preexisting condition clause being eliminated. Both are horrible news!

My health benefits have been rising since 2005 and the most this year. Why? The insurance companies are going to get theirs while they can because no one will be more affected by this bill than them. It will be much harder to screw us after that.

Unconstitutional? Yeah, probably the part where you are required to have health insurance. So let's eliminate that, take names of those that don't want it and make sure they get their wish.....when they show up for healthcare.

gunns
04-12-2011, 06:46 PM
The one's at the bottom are links. Go to the article if interested to click on them


By Jesse Drucker Bloomberg Businessweek



For the well-off, this could be the best tax day since the early 1930s: Top tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, estates, and gifts will remain at or near historically low levels for at least the next two years. That's thanks in part to legislation passed in December 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.



"This is clearly far and away the most generous tax situation that's existed," says Gregory D. Singer, a national managing director of the wealth management group at AllianceBernstein (AB) in New York. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."



For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate -- what they actually pay -- fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so.



That's not just good luck. It's often the result of hard work, as suggested by some of the strategies in the following pages. Much of the top 400's income is from dividends and capital gains, generated by everything from appreciated real estate -- yes, there is some left -- to stocks and the sale of family businesses. As Warren Buffett likes to point out, since most of his income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the people who clean his office.



The true effective rate for multimillionaires is actually far lower than that indicated by official government statistics. That's because those figures fail to include the additional income that's generated by many sophisticated tax-avoidance strategies. Several of those techniques involve some variation of complicated borrowings that never get repaid, netting the beneficiaries hundreds of millions in tax-free cash. From 2003 to 2008, for example, Los Angeles Dodgers owner and real estate developer Frank H. McCourt Jr. paid no federal or state regular income taxes, as stated in court records dug up by the Los Angeles Times. Developers such as McCourt, according to a declaration in his divorce proceeding, "typically fund their lifestyle through lines of credit and loan proceeds secured by their assets while paying little or no personal income taxes." A spokesman for McCourt said he availed himself of a tax code provision at the time that permitted purchasers of sports franchises to defer income taxes.



For those who can afford a shrewd accountant or attorney, our era is rife with opportunity to avoid, or at least defer, tax bills, according to tax specialists and public records. It's limited only by the boundaries of taste, creativity, and the ability to understand some very complex shelters.



The strategies

The 'no sale' sale: Cashing in on stocks without triggering capital-gains taxes
The skyscraper shuffle: Partnerships that let property owners liquidate without liability
The estate tax eliminator: How to leave future stock earnings to the kids and escape the estate tax
The trust freeze: "Freezing" the value of an estate so taxes don't eat up its future appreciation
The option option: Stock options allow executives to calibrate the taxes on their compensation in a big way
The bountiful loss: Using, but not unloading, underwater stock shares to adjust your tax bill
The friendly partner: With this deal, an investor can sell property without actually selling -- or incurring taxes
The big payback: So-called permanent life insurance policies are loaded with tax-avoiding benefits
IRA Monte Carlo: Tax advisers recommend converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs -- soon
The venti: Putting a chunk of pay in a deferred compensation plan can mean decades of tax-free growth
The exit strategy (not CPA-recommended): Death and taxes? Not for those who shuffled off to the hereafter in 2010

http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.aspx?post=26d490bd-7317-4f93-8b43-e1da1151ea5f&GT1=33005

That One Guy
04-12-2011, 07:06 PM
You guys are hilarious. First of all Obamacare, the majority of the bill, doesn't go into effect until 2014. The only real parts of it that have gone into effect are children up to 26, married or not, can be on your insurance. The second I'm not sure of but I believe is the preexisting condition clause being eliminated. Both are horrible news!

My health benefits have been rising since 2005 and the most this year. Why? The insurance companies are going to get theirs while they can because no one will be more affected by this bill than them. It will be much harder to screw us after that.

Unconstitutional? Yeah, probably the part where you are required to have health insurance. So let's eliminate that, take names of those that don't want it and make sure they get their wish.....when they show up for healthcare.

Do that now and a big part of the problem is solved. If you're driving anything but a 1986 Mercury Topaz and you don't have health insurance, you opted to buy a better car in its stead. No healthcare for you.

Why start personal responsibility only for those who don't want what you want?

gunns
04-12-2011, 07:18 PM
Do not cut the federal workforce.... cut the industrial complex and no-bid contracts - this increases competition AND saves the government a hell of a lot of money.

I agree with consolidating agencies... I think we should re-merge the DOD and DOHS - but all this wont save that much money.

I totally agree with reducing SS payments. It's ****ing retarded that I have to pay some baby boomers retirement.

Obamacare will save more money than it costs. Its not perfect, but repealing it will cost about $1.4 trillion. I still like the public option.

The final thing is what everybody, regardless of party, wants. It's much easier said than done, though.

You are totally nuts. The top wealthy do not pay social security tax or medicare tax. It's only taxed on those making up to $106,800.00 You taxed the people above that and Social Security dilemma is taken care of.

Reduce SS payments???? You paying for it? Most of us having been paying those taxes for 40 years for those before us also. (Damn how I love this younger, it's all about me, generation). The average SS payment is $1,170/mo or $14,000 per year. Try living on that. Plus medicare premiums each year is taking a bigger chunk of that amount. They have not received an increase for two years yet their medicare premiums have gone up. The top SS payment is approximately $2323.00. And that's for someone making approx the top amount (106,800) or someone making slightly less but with a spouse. Yeah let's decrease something they earned but still isn't enough to live on.

That One Guy
04-12-2011, 07:22 PM
You are totally nuts. The top wealthy do not pay social security tax or medicare tax. It's only taxed on those making up to $106,800.00 You taxed the people above that and Social Security dilemma is taken care of.

Reduce SS payments???? You paying for it? Most of us having been paying those taxes for 40 years for those before us also. (Damn how I love this younger, it's all about me, generation). The average SS payment is $1,170/mo or $14,000 per year. Try living on that. Plus medicare premiums each year is taking a bigger chunk of that amount. They have not received an increase for two years yet their medicare premiums have gone up. The top SS payment is approximately $2323.00. And that's for someone making approx the top amount (106,800) or someone making slightly less but with a spouse. Yeah let's decrease something they earned but still isn't enough to live on.

If you don't reduce the payments, those of us paying into it now won't have anything there when we get there. The system will long be scrapped. Man I love the older "it's all about me" generation.

And the reason there has been no cost of living raise is because the high gas prices a few years ago raised the allowance so much that when the gas prices went back down, the monthly check would've decreased but there are no decreases allowed by law. The slumping economy made things cheaper so not only was there no need for an increase but they were better off because if the number hadn't been protected at the higher amount, they'd be getting less.

TonyR
04-12-2011, 07:33 PM
So, he pays $350,000 in taxes. You pay $28,000. He's paying 12.5x more than you, yet he only makes 10x your income.

Assuming filing single they both paid 10% on the first $8,500 of taxable income, 15% on incremental taxalbe income up to $34,500, 25% up to $83,600, then 28% up to $174,400, 33% up to $379,150, and 35% over that. So the guy with $100,000 taxable income pays $21,617 while the guy with $1,000,000 taxable income pays $327,314. But in reality the guy with the higher taxable income probably managed to avoid paying taxes on a considerably higher level of income, and this analysis also ignores capital gains (which are taxed at a much lower rate) among numerous other factors. Either way I'd rather be the $1,000,000 and would gladly pay the higher tax bill. Wouldn't you?

Missouribronc
04-12-2011, 07:37 PM
Either way I'd rather be the $1,000,000 and would gladly pay the higher tax bill. Wouldn't you?

Bull.

That One Guy
04-12-2011, 07:41 PM
Assuming filing single they both paid 10% on the first $8,500 of taxable income, 15% on incremental taxalbe income up to $34,500, 25% up to $83,600, then 28% up to $174,400, 33% up to $379,150, and 35% over that. So the guy with $100,000 taxable income pays $21,617 while the guy with $1,000,000 taxable income pays $327,314. But in reality the guy with the higher taxable income probably managed to avoid paying taxes on a considerably higher level of income, and this analysis also ignores capital gains (which are taxed at a much lower rate) among numerous other factors. Either way I'd rather be the $1,000,000 and would gladly pay the higher tax bill. Wouldn't you?

You'd rather be making the $1,000,000 and paying as little in taxes as possible.

gunns
04-12-2011, 07:47 PM
If you don't reduce the payments, those of us paying into it now won't have anything there when we get there. The system will long be scrapped. Man I love the older "it's all about me" generation.

And the reason there has been no cost of living raise is because the high gas prices a few years ago raised the allowance so much that when the gas prices went back down, the monthly check would've decreased but there are no decreases allowed by law. The slumping economy made things cheaper so not only was there no need for an increase but they were better off because if the number hadn't been protected at the higher amount, they'd be getting less.

As I said we have paid our taxes, for much longer than you guys so far and earned that money. Don't blame us for having to live on a sustenance that is below poverty or that you will probably get none of. Focus on those responsible. You'd have to scrap most of the payments to have somethng there when you get there OR you could start taxing those that make over $106,800. But then you have those that would cry "we don't get it so why should we pay". Well I don't get half the tax loopholes either so I'd says it's an even match. You tax them and you are ok when you retire.

The reason they have not gotten a raise is because the government is proclaiming no inflation, so no raise. No matter how much they receive each month $117.00, up $7 from last year is taken out of their monthly checks for medicare. Yep, they are living the high life

That One Guy
04-12-2011, 08:15 PM
As I said we have paid our taxes, for much longer than you guys so far and earned that money. Don't blame us for having to live on a sustenance that is below poverty or that you will probably get none of. Focus on those responsible. You'd have to scrap most of the payments to have somethng there when you get there OR you could start taxing those that make over $106,800. But then you have those that would cry "we don't get it so why should we pay". Well I don't get half the tax loopholes either so I'd says it's an even match. You tax them and you are ok when you retire.

The reason they have not gotten a raise is because the government is proclaiming no inflation, so no raise. No matter how much they receive each month $117.00, up $7 from last year is taken out of their monthly checks for medicare. Yep, they are living the high life

Haha, so you're saying "too bad if you're going to pay for it and it's not there for you, take it up with someone else" but because it's your money at stake on the other hand, it becomes an issue? You want to take my money, say sorry, and get the payments. I wanna keep my money, say sorry, and move along. Aren't one of us going to be out of money either way? Again, that older "it's all about me" generation.

And nobody said old folks are living the high life on SS but who told them to retire and not having a savings? Is the savings concept something that just arose in the last 10 years? What makes their struggles any worse than the struggles so many others are facing?

And I found the article I read about it not too long ago:

By law, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are determined each year by a government measure of inflation. When consumer prices go up, payments go up. When consumer prices fall, payments stay flat until prices rebound.

There had been a COLA every year from 1975 through 2009, when a spike in energy prices resulted in a 5.8 percent increase, the largest in 27 years. Since then, the recession has depressed consumer prices, resulting in no COLA in 2010 or 2011.

Older people might feel they are falling behind because they haven't had a raise since 2009, but many are benefiting, said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Consumer prices dropped, but Social Security benefits didn't drop, Biggs said. At the same time, health care costs went up, but Part B premiums stayed the same for most beneficiaries.

"They are better off because of that," Biggs said. "Somebody else is paying for a greater share of their health care. This will get me hate mail, obviously. But it is what it is."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/SocialSecurity-COLA/2011/03/28/id/390880

So they were getting a higher pay than they would've otherwise gotten and yet their medicare premiums were frozen. Now, as healthcare cost continues to go up, they have to give up that extra few bucks? Well shucks, maybe we should let them opt out of the healthcare?

gunns
04-12-2011, 08:41 PM
Haha, so you're saying "too bad if you're going to pay for it and it's not there for you, take it up with someone else" but because it's your money at stake on the other hand, it becomes an issue? You want to take my money, say sorry, and get the payments. I wanna keep my money, say sorry, and move along. Aren't one of us going to be out of money either way? Again, that older "it's all about me" generation.

And nobody said old folks are living the high life on SS but who told them to retire and not having a savings? Is the savings concept something that just arose in the last 10 years? What makes their struggles any worse than the struggles so many others are facing?

And I found the article I read about it not too long ago:

By law, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are determined each year by a government measure of inflation. When consumer prices go up, payments go up. When consumer prices fall, payments stay flat until prices rebound.

There had been a COLA every year from 1975 through 2009, when a spike in energy prices resulted in a 5.8 percent increase, the largest in 27 years. Since then, the recession has depressed consumer prices, resulting in no COLA in 2010 or 2011.

Older people might feel they are falling behind because they haven't had a raise since 2009, but many are benefiting, said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Consumer prices dropped, but Social Security benefits didn't drop, Biggs said. At the same time, health care costs went up, but Part B premiums stayed the same for most beneficiaries.

"They are better off because of that," Biggs said. "Somebody else is paying for a greater share of their health care. This will get me hate mail, obviously. But it is what it is."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/SocialSecurity-COLA/2011/03/28/id/390880

So they were getting a higher pay than they would've otherwise gotten and yet their medicare premiums were frozen. Now, as healthcare cost continues to go up, they have to give up that extra few bucks? Well shucks, maybe we should let them opt out of the healthcare?

Yeah, take it up with those who have pilfered the Social Security monies. Retired people taking the money they paid into isn't an "about me" thing, it's taking what is ours. I have a stake in you getting yours as I have 6 children who will have to contend with what you will. I think it's a travesty to pay into this and there not be the money. But collecting what we do/will is not the reason you will not get yours.

Dependence on Social Security increases with age, as older people are less likely to work and more likely to have depleted their savings. Among those aged 80 or older, Social Security provides the majority of family income for 64 percent of beneficiaries and nearly all of the income for 33 percent of beneficiaries. Then there are those that couldn't save, for whatever reason, a significant amount to support themselves to death, which for most is unpredictable but maybe we could just start killing off the elderly. Now that would be a savings!

Yes, the part B premiums went up from $110.00 last year to $117.00 this year and not for just some. And I don't believe they are stupid enough to opt out of healthcare. But hey, at least they pay for theirs. Oh, the consumer prices dropped for a short period and have risen drastically.

That One Guy
04-12-2011, 08:57 PM
Yeah, take it up with those who have pilfered the Social Security monies. Retired people taking the money they paid into isn't an "about me" thing, it's taking what is ours. I have a stake in you getting yours as I have 6 children who will have to contend with what you will. I think it's a travesty to pay into this and there not be the money. But collecting what we do/will is not the reason you will not get yours.

Dependence on Social Security increases with age, as older people are less likely to work and more likely to have depleted their savings. Among those aged 80 or older, Social Security provides the majority of family income for 64 percent of beneficiaries and nearly all of the income for 33 percent of beneficiaries. Then there are those that couldn't save, for whatever reason, a significant amount to support themselves to death, which for most is unpredictable but maybe we could just start killing off the elderly. Now that would be a savings!

Yes, the part B premiums went up from $110.00 last year to $117.00 this year and not for just some. And I don't believe they are stupid enough to opt out of healthcare. But hey, at least they pay for theirs. Oh, the consumer prices dropped for a short period and have risen drastically.

Haha... "it's not about me... it's about taking what is ours".

I use that same logic when I say quit raising my taxes, let poor people starve.

And it's not the people I voted for (or potentially could vote for) that's ruining my likelihood of seeing my SS money. It's the ones YOU voted for who turned around and presumably used it to govern the US. YOU should be facing the consequences because it was your money you were putting into a savings account that they were pouring back into YOUR economy. They knew the baby boomer generation would be coming of age in due time but rather than use that money responsibly, the people you and your generation elected spent it. You want me to shoulder that burden?

And I'm not trying to take this out on the old people. It is what it is. But if SOMEONE is going to starve and the list is young child, out of work middle age individual, or 80 year old retiree... I want them to fed in that order. The fact that someone retired 25 years ago and didn't have ample savings... well... who should take responsibility for that? Was there a government agency somewhere demanding they leave the workforce?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-12-2011, 09:14 PM
You'd rather be making the $1,000,000 and paying as little in taxes as possible.

But you'll take those tax breaks and hire someone to work for you?

Bull.

And the greed in this country is why.. are you ready for this?

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS STILL DOESN'T WORK. Repeating that it does work doesn't make it work. 30 years couldn't make it work. 30 more won't make it work.

Time to try something sane, baggers.

pricejj
04-12-2011, 10:20 PM
You guys are hilarious. First of all Obamacare, the majority of the bill, doesn't go into effect until 2014. The only real parts of it that have gone into effect are children up to 26, married or not, can be on your insurance. The second I'm not sure of but I believe is the preexisting condition clause being eliminated. Both are horrible news!

My health benefits have been rising since 2005 and the most this year. Why? The insurance companies are going to get theirs while they can because no one will be more affected by this bill than them. It will be much harder to screw us after that.

Unconstitutional? Yeah, probably the part where you are required to have health insurance. So let's eliminate that, take names of those that don't want it and make sure they get their wish.....when they show up for healthcare.

I am fully aware of what parts of the bill have went into effect. I work in a pharmacy and the more expensive brand name drugs, though high before ($100-$200 per bottle) are now $500-$600 per bottle, or higher. I believe this is anticipation for what they (the drug companies) believe will be direct purchasing from the government in a few years. Therefore, they are trying to sell the same drug at an inflated rate. That is not even taking into account the increases on the insurance side.

Obamacare is not cheaper for the people.

If you take out the individual mandate, you have to take out mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. If you do that, all Obamacare is, is an expansion of Medicaid. It has done nothing except inflate healtchare prices even further.

I pay for my healtchare out of pocket now. Have you ever noticed that you pay the same price out-of-pocket, or with insurance (unless you have a cadillac plan)? Why have health insurance? So they can put up huge office buildings in DTC with our money? All insurance companies are, are banks that hold our money. You think everyone should have to buy this worthless product? I've said all I have to say on this topic.

:rofl:

Arkie
04-12-2011, 11:05 PM
Welfare & Warfare (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/welfare-or-warfare)

The United States has hit the proverbial jackpot, with a rapidly aging population, a $106 trillion unfunded liability, an administration that has piled more unfunded healthcare obligations upon our future unborn generations, spineless politicians that refuse to address the crisis, and as icing on the cake 700 military basis spread throughout the world and an annual defense budget of $895 billion equaling the total spending of the next 11 countries combined. The number of Americans over 65 will surge by 35% over the next 10 years and then by an additional 30% in the following decade. Baby Boom demographics have caught up with politician promises. Therein lays the dilemma. Every day 10,000 Americans turn 50 years old. They will not vote for anyone who promises to cut their entitlements. It is the American way to ignore long term problems until the crisis arrives. Politicians could have proactively addressed the out of control entitlement issue ten years ago. They did not. Now it is too late. The crisis is upon us.

ScottXray
04-12-2011, 11:42 PM
[QUOTE=pricejj;3156179]I am fully aware of what parts of the bill have went into effect. I work in a pharmacy and the more expensive brand name drugs, though high before ($100-$200 per bottle) are now $500-$600 per bottle, or higher. I believe this is anticipation for what they (the drug companies) believe will be direct purchasing from the government in a few years. Therefore, they are trying to sell the same drug at an inflated rate. That is not even taking into account the increases on the insurance side.

Obamacare is not cheaper for the people.

If you take out the individual mandate, you have to take out mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. If you do that, all Obamacare is, is an expansion of Medicaid. It has done nothing except inflate healtchare prices even further.

I pay for my healtchare out of pocket now. Have you ever noticed that you pay the same price out-of-pocket, or with insurance (unless you have a cadillac plan)? Why have health insurance? So they can put up huge office buildings in DTC with our money? All insurance companies are, are banks that hold our money. You think everyone should have to buy this worthless product? I've said all I have to say on this topic.

:rofl:[/QUOTE

Insurance companies are not banks that hold our money. Insurance companies are middle men that take approximately 30% of every dime they get and give it to their employees , executives and shareholders. They try very hard NOT to give you back ANY of the money they receive, through exclusions of treatments that you may need , because they don't want to fulfill their side of the contract they made with you to pay your medical expenses. Insurance companies are, in short, a pox on the medical business in general. They don't want to pay anybody but themselves.
The part of Obamacare they REALLY dislike is the fact that they have to spend 85%of their income by using it for medical treatments. So they are now classifying all their BS administrative costs as MEDICAL expenses.

The reason people buy health insurance is that the rates for medical care can quickly bankrupt any common person, and in fact that is a large reason for many bankruptcies.

My brother in law is disabled (Multiple sclerosis) and lives on his monthly Social security disability check. He gets a total of $1387 a month and has no other income. His Copaxone (daily injections) drug has a co-payment through medicare of ..........Get this, approximately $1200 a month. Now if he had medicare, and part D after only 4 1/2months they would then cover his copaxone. Of course , how he is supposed to eat those first few months is his problem. And of course he would have to pay the 119 a month for the coverage ( plus a part D payment) also. Not to mention rent , and other Normal expenses.

So I opted him out of Medicare...completely, except part A. Because we got him into Kaiser whenhe was divorced by his wife, through her job and Cobra.

So he pays Kaiser $525 a month, plus a $40 a month co pay for his Copaxone. and he has full medical coverage. A lot of deductibles but as long as he pays his bill Kaiser doesn't quibble too much.

So, It's great that YOU are healthy. And when you get a little older and start having a few "issues" my bet is you will start thinking that self insurance kind of sucks ( especially if there isn't SOME kind of government health care law (like Obamacare) in effect when you have to buy some of that great insurance.

I can't really tell if you are for or against O-care from your comments, above. It sounds like you are against Insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals that are inflating drug prices to rip off medicare ( and the insurance companies (and in effect the public).

As for social security...As of summer 2009 I have paid $118,000 into that fund, and $29,500 into medicare. My employers have paid an equivalent amount. We are talkeng close to $300000. I have paid the maximum the last two years also. I fully realise that my payments aren't in fund marked for me...they have gone into the trust fund that has been making payments to all recipients since before I was born. But, I am due some of that money back when I retire. I will recieve about $23000 a year. If I live another 15 years it will be about break even, but I doubt I will make it to 80 ( I smoked for 45 years). So now you want the payments to be lowered so that when you retire you will have Yours?
Why not insist that the government stop borrowing from the fund ,and pay back, with interest, the funds they have already borrowed? If the SS trust fund had just been left alone , and accrued the interest it should have gotten instead of the crap t-bill rates it did ( in inflated money) ....the problem wouldn't exist, as it would be solvent for the forseeable future ( beyond 2050).

Blame the Government, not the Baby boomers. We had to pay just like you, no choice in the matter..

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 06:23 AM
[QUOTE=pricejj;3156179]I am fully aware of what parts of the bill have went into effect. I work in a pharmacy and the more expensive brand name drugs, though high before ($100-$200 per bottle) are now $500-$600 per bottle, or higher. I believe this is anticipation for what they (the drug companies) believe will be direct purchasing from the government in a few years. Therefore, they are trying to sell the same drug at an inflated rate. That is not even taking into account the increases on the insurance side.

Obamacare is not cheaper for the people.

If you take out the individual mandate, you have to take out mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. If you do that, all Obamacare is, is an expansion of Medicaid. It has done nothing except inflate healtchare prices even further.

I pay for my healtchare out of pocket now. Have you ever noticed that you pay the same price out-of-pocket, or with insurance (unless you have a cadillac plan)? Why have health insurance? So they can put up huge office buildings in DTC with our money? All insurance companies are, are banks that hold our money. You think everyone should have to buy this worthless product? I've said all I have to say on this topic.

:rofl:[/QUOTE

Insurance companies are not banks that hold our money. Insurance companies are middle men that take approximately 30% of every dime they get and give it to their employees , executives and shareholders. They try very hard NOT to give you back ANY of the money they receive, through exclusions of treatments that you may need , because they don't want to fulfill their side of the contract they made with you to pay your medical expenses. Insurance companies are, in short, a pox on the medical business in general. They don't want to pay anybody but themselves.
The part of Obamacare they REALLY dislike is the fact that they have to spend 85%of their income by using it for medical treatments. So they are now classifying all their BS administrative costs as MEDICAL expenses.

The reason people buy health insurance is that the rates for medical care can quickly bankrupt any common person, and in fact that is a large reason for many bankruptcies.

My brother in law is disabled (Multiple sclerosis) and lives on his monthly Social security disability check. He gets a total of $1387 a month and has no other income. His Copaxone (daily injections) drug has a co-payment through medicare of ..........Get this, approximately $1200 a month. Now if he had medicare, and part D after only 4 1/2months they would then cover his copaxone. Of course , how he is supposed to eat those first few months is his problem. And of course he would have to pay the 119 a month for the coverage ( plus a part D payment) also. Not to mention rent , and other Normal expenses.

So I opted him out of Medicare...completely, except part A. Because we got him into Kaiser whenhe was divorced by his wife, through her job and Cobra.

So he pays Kaiser $525 a month, plus a $40 a month co pay for his Copaxone. and he has full medical coverage. A lot of deductibles but as long as he pays his bill Kaiser doesn't quibble too much.

So, It's great that YOU are healthy. And when you get a little older and start having a few "issues" my bet is you will start thinking that self insurance kind of sucks ( especially if there isn't SOME kind of government health care law (like Obamacare) in effect when you have to buy some of that great insurance.

I can't really tell if you are for or against O-care from your comments, above. It sounds like you are against Insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals that are inflating drug prices to rip off medicare ( and the insurance companies (and in effect the public).

As for social security...As of summer 2009 I have paid $118,000 into that fund, and $29,500 into medicare. My employers have paid an equivalent amount. We are talkeng close to $300000. I have paid the maximum the last two years also. I fully realise that my payments aren't in fund marked for me...they have gone into the trust fund that has been making payments to all recipients since before I was born. But, I am due some of that money back when I retire. I will recieve about $23000 a year. If I live another 15 years it will be about break even, but I doubt I will make it to 80 ( I smoked for 45 years). So now you want the payments to be lowered so that when you retire you will have Yours?
Why not insist that the government stop borrowing from the fund ,and pay back, with interest, the funds they have already borrowed? If the SS trust fund had just been left alone , and accrued the interest it should have gotten instead of the crap t-bill rates it did ( in inflated money) ....the problem wouldn't exist, as it would be solvent for the forseeable future ( beyond 2050).

Blame the Government, not the Baby boomers. We had to pay just like you, no choice in the matter..

So, as I asked above, who elected those politicians that squandered your money? And who was there to benefit from that money being taken and put back into the economy? Why should we shoulder the blame for the baby boomers being a bunch of irresponsible voters?

Jetmeck
04-13-2011, 06:33 AM
But you'll take those tax breaks and hire someone to work for you?

Bull.

And the greed in this country is why.. are you ready for this?

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS STILL DOESN'T WORK. Repeating that it does work doesn't make it work. 30 years couldn't make it work. 30 more won't make it work.

Time to try something sane, baggers.

DING,DING ,DING....................
wE HAVE A WINNER.

Someone who gets it.
Just got off the phone with Speaker Boehner's office telling
him to get on the reality train starting today. We have a revenue issue in this country as well as a spending issue.

Shore up tax revenues from companies using loopholes like "our company is based overseas"......yeah like in their company headquarters are in a MAILBOX and I am not joking here.
Thius was on 20/20 weeks ago. They found these mailboxes and closets that had no employees but was the company headquarters.

Make these bums pay up.....and don't tell me they won't create any jobs.....they been living the high life while shifting the tax burden to people like us and have not created the jobs.....at least not here in THIS COUNTRY. mAYBE THE GREEDY BASTARDS CREATED JOBS OVERSEAS BUT NOT HERE AND INCREASING THEIR PROFIT MARGIN BY KEEPING THEIR TAX BURDEN LOW HURTS EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

The rich need a tax increase , just back to cLINTON ERA TAX RATES.
They havent been creating their jobs either so dont go there.

Gutting social security which by the way IS NOT AN ENTITLEMANT PROGRAM..........is BS. Washington dipped into the coffer when there was a surplus and now when we need it the surplus is gone. We are all paying for this and it needs to be tweeked. Those of us paying in to this should NOT get the shaft because Washington bureaucrats cant stay out of the cookie jar.

Jetmeck
04-13-2011, 06:39 AM
[QUOTE=ScottXray;3156214]

So, as I asked above, who elected those politicians that squandered your money? And who was there to benefit from that money being taken and put back into the economy? Why should we shoulder the blame for the baby boomers being a bunch of irresponsible voters?

Probably the same republican idiot voters who put the tea baggers in to attack the middle class. Some voters with little common sense who vote against their economic interests every time they vote republican. Think about it. ......lot more middle class voters out there than anybody else. If they just voted with their wallets and quit worrying about social issues like abortion and don't tell me this isnt the case. Just a few days ago the republican idiots in Washington tried to defund Planned parenthood for this exact reason.

These types of people are why were in this mess........................

wolverine
04-13-2011, 07:12 AM
Nope. Due to healtchare spending, England is in worse debt than the U.S. (without the military expenditures). As are all the SOCIALIST European countries except Germany.

...England has THE HIGHEST individual income tax rate in the world (52%) for those making over $57k a year.

zowie!

:

This is total bull ****.

UK (England) top income tax rate is 50% for those making more than 150,000 pound sterling (that's about $250,000) and only applies as a marginal rate to the income you make above the 150,000 pounds sterling threshold.

US National debt = 14 trillion dollars.
UK National debt = 800 billion to 2 trillion pounds (depending which figure you use). Let's call it in the 1.5 to 3 trillion dollar range.

And did I mention that everyone in the UK has a free health care? To make a tax-rate comparison you need to add on what you pay in health insurance and health care costs every year and see what that makes YOUR equivalent tax rate. Interesting exercise!

Socialism is a bitch ain't it.

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 07:38 AM
[QUOTE=That One Guy;3156242]

Probably the same republican idiot voters who put the tea baggers in to attack the middle class. Some voters with little common sense who vote against their economic interests every time they vote republican. Think about it. ......lot more middle class voters out there than anybody else. If they just voted with their wallets and quit worrying about social issues like abortion and don't tell me this isnt the case. Just a few days ago the republican idiots in Washington tried to defund Planned parenthood for this exact reason.

These types of people are why were in this mess........................

Humor us, tell us what exactly you would do to fix the budget. Everyone likes entitlements but someone has to pay for them. THAT is a result of people voting with their wallets. That is the greed which has caused our country problems.

And, I agree, those who pay into SS should get their money. The difference is that the coffers were plundered before I was of voting age. The plunderers and the beneficiaries of the plundering are those who will still have some SS to feed off of. I would be 64 in 2050 when the fund is set to run out. I can vote in people to protect the fund but I can't stop the plundering that the baby boomers did to their fund for their own general gain. They who voted in bad politicians and enjoyed the plundering of the fund will have already taken my money and run with it.

For the 800th time, why should I shoulder the burden when the baby boomer's helped plunder their own fund? Either I get screwed out of my money or they do. I didn't vote in crappy politicians (crappy in the sense of stealing SS money for everything under the sun).

alkemical
04-13-2011, 07:43 AM
[QUOTE=Jetmeck;3156255]

Humor us, tell us what exactly you would do to fix the budget. Everyone likes entitlements but someone has to pay for them. THAT is a result of people voting with their wallets. That is the greed which has caused our country problems.

And, I agree, those who pay into SS should get their money. The difference is that the coffers were plundered before I was of voting age. The plunderers and the beneficiaries of the plundering are those who will still have some SS to feed off of. I would be 64 in 2050 when the fund is set to run out. I can vote in people to protect the fund but I can't stop the plundering that the baby boomers did to their fund for their own general gain. They who voted in bad politicians and enjoyed the plundering of the fund will have already taken my money and run with it.

For the 800th time, why should I shoulder the burden when the baby boomer's helped plunder their own fund? Either I get screwed out of my money or they do. I didn't vote in crappy politicians (crappy in the sense of stealing SS money for everything under the sun).



It's true. We are an entitlement society from the top down. We want to take everyone's entitlements away but "ours".

So what's the next step, how do we deal with it?

I don't think there's a "real" answer due to the majority of Americans being unwilling to compromise.

ScottXray
04-13-2011, 08:17 AM
[QUOTE=ScottXray;3156214]

So, as I asked above, who elected those politicians that squandered your money? And who was there to benefit from that money being taken and put back into the economy? Why should we shoulder the blame for the baby boomers being a bunch of irresponsible voters?

The Plundering of the SS trust was started by that icon of the right, Ronald Reagan, who used it to pay for HIS deficit spending. Followed by Bush I, a bit by Clinton, and then a bunch by Bush II, since he needed to fund two wars that weren't on the official federal budgets. Obama probably also , but I haven't seen any figures for what the government has stolen from SS in the last few years.

Other than Clinton and recently Obama, I didn't vote for ANY of these.

Fortunately , Or maybe unfortunately, The laws of these elected officials can not be over-ruled by me. We live in a representative democracy.

But it is the Republicans that were in control of the white house, and , mostly, the Congress, for the bulk of the last 30 years. THEY are who I blame, as they are the ones who put us in this bind. Democrats pretty much went along by being "bi-partisan" and not filibustering these outrageous thefts of the public treasury. They should have done more to stop it, but let's not forget who started this disaster on its course. As stated above....Trickle down just doesn't work....and that is a republican idea that is STILL one of their mainstay platforms....

The adage of what comprises insanity ( trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result) is the very heart of the Ryan plan. Giving more and more control of the wealth ( tax breaks) to the rich and expecting that to result in more tax revenue is insanity. It also has resulted in the growth of corporations power and the reduction of federal revenue from corporations from 30% to 6% of the total. Combined with the moving of jobs out of country to increase profits the
result is the destruction of the middle class.

Yes we have to fix this.....we have to cut spending and RAISE revenue to get back to even. The only way that happens is by everyone taking a reduction in our standard of living, and THAT is what politicians won't do.

TonyR
04-13-2011, 08:42 AM
Bull.

Bull? So you'd rather have $100,000 in taxable income and the lower tax bill that comes with it than $1,000,000 in taxable income and a higher tax bill? You really think the higher tax rates on higher levels of income demotivates people from earning more? Ridic.

BroncoInferno
04-13-2011, 08:52 AM
Bull? So you'd rather have $100,000 in taxable income and the lower tax bill that comes with it than $1,000,000 in taxable income and a higher tax bill? You really think the higher tax rates on higher levels of income demotivates people from earning more? Ridic.

It really is. Countless innovations and successful business models popped between the end of WW II and Reagan when taxes on corporations and the wealthy were FAR higher than they are now. The notion that paying a higher percentage of income demotivates people from striving towards wealth is pure fiction.

Dukes
04-13-2011, 08:54 AM
Has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity? Ever?

Meck77
04-13-2011, 08:58 AM
Has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity? Ever?

It's real easy to sit online all day hoping others pay into the tax base for them.

TailgateNut
04-13-2011, 08:59 AM
Has a country ever BORROWED itself into prosperity? Ever?


Our way of venturing into oblivion

pricejj
04-13-2011, 09:06 AM
Insurance companies are not banks that hold our money. Insurance companies are middle men that take approximately 30% of every dime they get...

My brother in law is disabled (Multiple sclerosis) and lives on his monthly Social security disability check. He gets a total of $1387 a month and has no other income...
As for social security...As of summer 2009 I have paid $118,000 into that fund, and $29,500 into medicare...


In reality, insurance companies should be "money holders", like banks. I believe they should be nonprofit, therefore, our healthcare dollars would go to pay for healthcare, not stockholders.

It is true, there needs to be a safety net in place for older people (who tend to have more health issues), and for those who contract catastrophic health issues earlier in life. That is why Medicare and Medicaid exist. Both programs need to be reformed to limit the cost to the patients and the taxpayer.

If everyone were allowed to save, in the form of a tax free HSA, all the money that they would normally pay in healthcare premiums, we would all be readily able to handle any normal healthcare expense that came our way. If we did this, not only would we have our own money (not wasted on insurance premiums), the prices for healthcare would be much lower.

As for SS, the recipient should recieve what they payed in, plus interest. I see no problem with that. All you have to do to make SS solvent is add 1% in extra tax, the way it currently stands. Not a huge problem.

Arkie
04-13-2011, 09:20 AM
Has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity? Ever?

Has a man ever stood in a bucket and lifted himself up by the handle?

bowtown
04-13-2011, 09:25 AM
Bull? So you'd rather have $100,000 in taxable income and the lower tax bill that comes with it than $1,000,000 in taxable income and a higher tax bill? You really think the higher tax rates on higher levels of income demotivates people from earning more? Ridic.

No but it sure makes a convinient excuse! I would definitely be a millionaire if not for the top bracket tax rate. I'm still trying to get that line to work on chicks though.

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 09:28 AM
Here's my solution. 85% of the health care costs paid for by Medicare are taken up by 25% of the patients covered. Generally, it is the elderly, the poorest, and the worst off. The other killer cost is fraud. Medical organizations all across the country pad the bills to cover costs in other areas. Hey, it's just the government. Let's stick it to them.

IMO, what we should do is open government health clinics that specialize in dealing with these cases. They would operate as a kind of triage. Those cases which could be taken care of through lower cost home health care services would be separated out. Many could be taken care of at the clinic where prices would be regulated. The clinics would be owned by the government. They could encourage new doctors to work a prescribed period of time in these clinics by assisting with education costs. Only the worst cases would be referred for hospitalization under Medicare. Another service offered could be health care for the poor at much reduced costs. They would pay a per service fee. Also, these clinics would be able to purchase medicines in volume wherever they could get the best price, here or abroad. Many of the services that the elderly require have more to do with diet, exercise and assistance with medication. Having hospitals billing Medicare for such treatments is ridiculous. These clinics would control prices and costs and remove many of higher cost patients from the entire hospital system, lowering costs across the board.

BTW, I agree with Gunns. If you don't like what happened to SS, take it up with the politicians who stole, and spent, the money, including flushing a trillion down the ****hole of Iraq.

pricejj
04-13-2011, 09:29 AM
This is total bull ****.

UK (England) top income tax rate is 50% for those making more than 150,000 pound sterling (that's about $250,000) and only applies as a marginal rate to the income you make above the 150,000 pounds sterling threshold.

US National debt = 14 trillion dollars.
UK National debt = 800 billion to 2 trillion pounds (depending which figure you use). Let's call it in the 1.5 to 3 trillion dollar range.

And did I mention that everyone in the UK has a free health care? To make a tax-rate comparison you need to add on what you pay in health insurance and health care costs every year and see what that makes YOUR equivalent tax rate. Interesting exercise!

Socialism is a b**** ain't it.

U.K. Income tax rate for $57,000 and up to $250,000 is 40%. NHS tax is 12%.
40% + 12% = 52%.
An extra 12% tax on income is hardly free.

Contrary to your belief, I, along with the majority of other Americans, spend next to nothing on healthcare (2 teeth cleanings, 1 physical) every year. Although I do have a tax-free HSA, where I am saving for possible future healthcare needs. You think everyone is sick and dying or what?

Hilarious!

England debt-to-GDP ratio is 240%.

US debt-to-GDP ratio is 94% (debt-to-GDP ratio was 62% two years ago !)

(It would be an interesting exercise for you to do your hw before posting wouldn't it?)

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 09:34 AM
U.K. Income tax rate for $57,000 and up to $250,000 is 40%. NHS tax is 12%.
40% + 12% = 52%.
An extra 12% tax on income is hardly free.

Contrary to your belief, I, along with the majority of other Americans, spend next to nothing on healthcare (2 teeth cleanings, 1 physical) every year. Although I do have a tax-free HSA, where I am saving for possible future healthcare needs. You think everyone is sick and dying or what?

Hilarious!

England debt-to-GDP ratio is 240%.

US debt-to-GDP ratio is 94% (debt-to-GDP ratio was 62% two years ago !)

(It would be an interesting exercise for you to do your hw before posting wouldn't it?)

What caused the change in the debt to GDP ratio? I'm guessing it was the costs of war and the costs of bailing out the banks and Wall Street. In other words, the wrong taxation and regulation policies drove this country into a ****hole created by a bunch of greedy bastards, and those same greedy bastards want to take apart our social safety net (as paltry as it is) to keep their gravy train running.

Obushma
04-13-2011, 09:45 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mfE4GX7fw1Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Arkie
04-13-2011, 09:51 AM
BY RON PAUL 04/12/2011

Last week, Congress and the administration refused to seriously consider the problem of government spending. Despite the fear-mongering, a government shutdown would not have been as bad as claimed.
It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage. A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.
Unfortunately, the compromises always seem to be just the opposite. Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives? Throughout history, empires have always overextended themselves through conquests and wealth transfers leading to eventual collapse, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. We are headed in the same direction and it seems only the chaos of the collapse of the dollar will stop the spending spree. Arguing over funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, though important, only shows that leadership in Washington either won't face reality, or don't understand how serious the problem is.
Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children's education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people's lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on "compromises" but a transition - to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights.

ScottXray
04-13-2011, 10:15 AM
In reality, insurance companies should be "money holders", like banks. I believe they should be nonprofit, therefore, our healthcare dollars would go to pay for healthcare, not stockholders.

.

And that is the problem. These companies are in the business for PROFIT. And other than Medicare there is NO public healthcare agency. So now they want to cut back on that.

The Fraud that medicare is subjected to could be prevented by adequately funding an enforcement agency and requiring verification of actual expenses before paying these assholes that rip it off. Change the law to that effect and we save 30% of the entire medicare payments ( what now goes down the drain ). But that means no money comes back to the politicians that refuse to change the law the correct way. No profit and no lobbying money.

Our government is broken.

alkemical
04-13-2011, 10:35 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209

After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.

Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.

Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter’s web site, Shadowstats.com…

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 10:53 AM
BY RON PAUL 04/12/2011

Last week, Congress and the administration refused to seriously consider the problem of government spending. Despite the fear-mongering, a government shutdown would not have been as bad as claimed.
It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage. A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.
Unfortunately, the compromises always seem to be just the opposite. Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives? Throughout history, empires have always overextended themselves through conquests and wealth transfers leading to eventual collapse, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. We are headed in the same direction and it seems only the chaos of the collapse of the dollar will stop the spending spree. Arguing over funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, though important, only shows that leadership in Washington either won't face reality, or don't understand how serious the problem is.
Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children's education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people's lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on "compromises" but a transition - to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights.

Nanny state? And what does Ron Paul propose? A Darwinian economy of nothing but winners and losers? Ron needs to go back and read up on the Gilded Age. Back then, instead of everybody chipping in to provide a safety net for all, the corporations were in charge. They had company stores. And company housing. You worked when they told you to work. Your kids too. And you owed your soul to the company store, like the old song goes. If you, or one of your kids, or other family members got sick, they got better on their own, or they died. If you tried to strike, they had private militias, sanctioned by the politicians and police, who would literally bash your brains out on the street with clubs, or like Henry Ford's thugs, machine gun your ass.

Libertarians believe in the mythology of the "invisible hand" and the perfection of systems, primarily capitalism. Nothing about capitalism is perfect. What we don't need is another failed religion. What we don't need is ideology first, and people last. Teddy Roosevelt laid the first stones of the Progressive edifice in the U.S. I have yet to see half the sense or intelligence that he had in any of the people who now want to tear it all down.

Obushma
04-13-2011, 10:59 AM
Nanny state? And what does Ron Paul propose? A Darwinian economy of nothing but winners and losers? Ron needs to go back and read up on the Gilded Age. Back then, instead of everybody chipping in to provide a safety net for all, the corporations were in charge. They had company stores. And company housing. You worked when they told you to work. Your kids too. And you owed your soul to the company store, like the old song goes. If you, or one of your kids, or other family members got sick, they got better on their own, or they died. If you tried to strike, they had private militias, sanctioned by the politicians and police, who would literally bash your brains out on the street with clubs, or like Henry Ford's thugs, machine gun your ass.

Libertarians believe in the mythology of the "invisible hand" and the perfection of systems, primarily capitalism. Nothing about capitalism is perfect. What we don't need is another failed religion. What we don't need is ideology first, and people last. Teddy Roosevelt laid the first stones of the Progressive edifice in the U.S. I have yet to see half the sense or intelligence that he had in any of the people who now want to tear it all down.

Oh Ro, you're such a flip-flopper (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1909266&postcount=4). I'm almost embarrassed for you.

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 11:09 AM
Oh Ro, you're such a flip-flopper (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1909266&postcount=4). I'm almost embarrassed for you.

Like I've said the other six times you've posted this, that was 2008. I still agree with his ideas on winding down the imperialism of the U.S. and the unnecessary wars, and the thousands of overseas bases we maintain. But with you true libertarian religionists, it's all or nothing, right? You can't just agree on some policies and disagree on others. You have to buy into the whole religion, or you're an apostate.
:bs:

That kind of rigid ideological fanaticism is what's taking down our government right now.

Besides, in case you haven't been clued in, the movement Ron Paul launched in 2008 has been co-opted by the Koch Bros and Michele Bachmann. Have fun with that.

BroncoInferno
04-13-2011, 11:10 AM
Oh Ro, you're such a flip-flopper (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1909266&postcount=4). I'm almost embarrassed for you.

How about trying to refute his spot on post?

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 11:17 AM
How about trying to refute his spot on post?

Religionists never argue dogma. You accept it, or you're a heretic.

alkemical
04-13-2011, 11:22 AM
Religionists never argue dogma. You accept it, or you're a heretic.

Isn't heresy a victimless crime? :D

Obushma
04-13-2011, 11:30 AM
Like I've said the other six times you've posted this, that was 2008. I still agree with his ideas on winding down the imperialism of the U.S. and the unnecessary wars, and the thousands of overseas bases we maintain. But with you true libertarian religionists, it's all or nothing, right? You can't just agree on some policies and disagree on others. You have to buy into the whole religion, or you're an apostate.
:bs:

That kind of rigid ideological fanatacism is what's taking down our government right now.

Besides, in case you haven't been clued in, the movement Ron Paul launched in 2008 has been co-opted by the Koch Bros and Michele Bachmann. Have fun with that.

No, see, thats what you dont understand. It's Ideological Fanaticism that's gotten us to the point we are at today. You're saying because there are Americans that believe everything needs to be cut across the board, and only spend what we take in, that they're crazy?

...Think about that for a second

It's that mentality thats gotten us in this mess, and it's that mentality that Boomers need to get over. You cant charge everything and put it on credit anymore Ro, you're over-limit. Now the Bank has increased your interest rate, and you're asking for a increase on your credit limit?

Obushma
04-13-2011, 11:34 AM
How about trying to refute his spot on post?

Refute what, the dollar is being destroyed right before our eyes, nobody else is talking about it. Keynesian school has failed, it's time to give the Austrians a chance.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d0nERTFo-Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

wolverine
04-13-2011, 11:38 AM
U.K. Income tax rate for $57,000 and up to $250,000 is 40%. NHS tax is 12%.
40% + 12% = 52%.
An extra 12% tax on income is hardly free.

Contrary to your belief, I, along with the majority of other Americans, spend next to nothing on healthcare (2 teeth cleanings, 1 physical) every year. Although I do have a tax-free HSA, where I am saving for possible future healthcare needs. You think everyone is sick and dying or what?

Hilarious!

England debt-to-GDP ratio is 240%.

US debt-to-GDP ratio is 94% (debt-to-GDP ratio was 62% two years ago !)

(It would be an interesting exercise for you to do your hw before posting wouldn't it?)

"Most Americans spend next to nothing on health care"
Hilarious!
...
Hilarious!Hilarious!

And what the **** is "NHS tax"? There is no such thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom

There is "National Insurance," just as the US has Social Security on top of Income Tax. However, please show me where the it says that UK individuals pay 12% flat out of pocket.

As I understand it the rules are complicated and employers contribute heavily to NI contributions for employees.

It would be an interesting exercise for YOU to do you homework before posting.

epicSocialism4tw
04-13-2011, 11:43 AM
No, see, thats what you dont understand. It's Ideological Fanaticism that's gotten us to the point we are at today. You're saying because there are Americans that believe everything needs to be cut across the board, and only spend what we take in, that they're crazy?

...Think about that for a second

It's that mentality thats gotten us in this mess, and it's that mentality that Boomers need to get over. You cant charge everything and put it on credit anymore Ro, you're over-limit. Now the Bank has increased your interest rate, and you're asking for a increase on your credit limit?

The Boomers' time is over. They're on their way out. Time for this nation to return to sanity.

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 11:57 AM
No, see, thats what you dont understand. It's Ideological Fanaticism that's gotten us to the point we are at today. You're saying because there are Americans that believe everything needs to be cut across the board, and only spend what we take in, that they're crazy?

...Think about that for a second

It's that mentality thats gotten us in this mess, and it's that mentality that Boomers need to get over. You cant charge everything and put it on credit anymore Ro, you're over-limit. Now the Bank has increased your interest rate, and you're asking for a increase on your credit limit?

Reagan put America on the credit card when he gave the rich an unfunded 50% tax cut while continuing unchecked spending. Remember, it was under Reagan that Cheney stated, "Deficits don't matter." Ever since then, government has been fighting to somehow repair the imbalance those idiotic tax cuts caused. Dubya's unfunded and unnecessary trillion dollar war didn't help. For the Right to now suddenly pop up and say, "We're deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives and it's all the fault of entitlement programs" is unmitigated bull****. I noticed the Right's recent budget proposal doesn't touch one penny of the Pentagon's budget, talking about crazy.

BTW, you've got to get over this immature "Boomer" fixation of yours. The majority of these programs have been around for 80 years. I know that the ignorant usually lash out at the first scapegoat that pops up in their limited brains, but if you want to blame a whole generation for these programs, you'll have to blame "The Greatest Generation." They wrote it.

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 11:58 AM
The Boomers' time is over. They're on their way out. Time for this nation to return to sanity.

You're an idiot.

alkemical
04-13-2011, 12:04 PM
You're an idiot.

It's always the blame game, isn't it?

It's not "their" fault, but we do need their help in fixing the problems (I'm going to be 32 soon, and I personally would rather do the heavy lifting NOW when/while i'm able too).

This line of thinking (while I have argued PRO before on this topic) is no different than the old guy saying: "you know what's wrong with YOUR generation...".

It doesn't solve anything, just creates more of a divide and keeps problems stagnated to the point that cooperation dissolves.

alkemical
04-13-2011, 12:09 PM
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street/

The Real Housewives Of Wall Street

Posted by majestic on April 12, 2011

404px-Morgan_Stanley_on_Times_SquareMatt Taibbi asks “Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?”, as ever in Rolling Stone:

America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we’re broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year’s retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.

Most Americans know about that budget. What they don’t know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the “official” budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the “other” budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. “Our jaws are literally dropping as we’re reading this,” says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “Every one of these transactions is outrageous.”

But if you want to get a true sense of what the “shadow budget” is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall’s haul doesn’t seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn’t seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley’s investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income…

[continues in Rolling Stone]

pricejj
04-13-2011, 12:32 PM
And what the **** is "NHS tax"? There is no such thing

please show me where the it says that UK individuals pay 12% flat out of pocket.


National Health System Tax = National Insurance Tax ???
Still don't get it? Let me explain...

It is a tax for National Insurance in England that taxpayers must pay for "free" healthcare.

Last year the basic rate was 11% for individuals, now it is 12% for individuals. Employer's also must pay a percentage.
You want "free" healthcare? MOVE TO ENGLAND.

Have you heard of the GOOGLE? Here's a link ...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

:wave:

Obushma
04-13-2011, 12:41 PM
Reagan put America on the credit card when he gave the rich an unfunded 50% tax cut while continuing unchecked spending. Remember, it was under Reagan that Cheney stated, "Deficits don't matter." Ever since then, government has been fighting to somehow repair the imbalance those idiotic tax cuts caused. Dubya's unfunded and unnecessary trillion dollar war didn't help. For the Right to now suddenly pop up and say, "We're deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives and it's all the fault of entitlement programs" is unmitigated bull****. I noticed the Right's recent budget proposal doesn't touch one penny of the Pentagon's budget, talking about crazy.

BTW, you've got to get over this immature "Boomer" fixation of yours. The majority of these programs have been around for 80 years. I know that the ignorant usually lash out at the first scapegoat that pops up in their limited brains, but if you want to blame a whole generation for these programs, you'll have to blame "The Greatest Generation." They wrote it.

Wrong (http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf)

Just said Boomers need to get off the CC's they love to use, little touchy, have a few too many CC's there Ro?

wolverine
04-13-2011, 12:47 PM
National Health System Tax = National Insurance Tax ???
Still don't get it? Let me explain...

It is a tax for National Insurance in England that taxpayers must pay for "free" healthcare.

:wave:

No it is not. Do your research. National Insurance covers many other things. For example: state unemployment and retirement benefits.

I am originally from Britain by the way. Like the system. Can't stand the weather.

:wave:

Rohirrim
04-13-2011, 12:53 PM
Wrong (http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf)

Just said Boomers need to get off the CC's they love to use, little touchy, have a few too many CC's there Ro?

I was referring to the Republican Party's budget. CC? Don't know what that is.

alkemical
04-13-2011, 12:54 PM
I was referring to the Republican Party's budget. CC? Don't know what that is.

Credit Cards.

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 01:51 PM
Obushma, would you support cutting the Pentagon's budget?

Obushma
04-13-2011, 01:53 PM
Obushma, would you support cutting the Pentagon's budget?

Absolutely.

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 01:55 PM
Absolutely.

There ya go, Ro. A guy who is as vocal a supporter as anyone about the Tea Party agrees with you that the R's didn't cut the Pentagon's budget as you think they should've. Looks like we can all agree and you can quit defending the baby boomers by pointing to the Pentagon. See how easy that was?

pricejj
04-13-2011, 02:02 PM
No it is not. Do your research. National Insurance covers many other things. For example: state unemployment and retirement benefits.

I am originally from Britain by the way. Like the system. Can't stand the weather.

:wave:

If you like it, by all means move back.

The Revolutionary War was fought to rid the US of the British system of OVERtaxation.

Let's do a little math, shall we?
U.S. Individual Income taxes (for the average taxpayer) = FIT + State + SS + Medicare = ~17% + 4.63% + 6.2% + 1.45% = 29.28%
47% of Americans pay NO Federal Income Tax.
Average U.S. Individual Income taxes = 29.28%


Britain Individual Income taxes = Income Tax + National Insurance Tax = 40% + 12% = 52%
Average Britain Individual Income taxes = 52% (plus 20% VAT tax)

I would pay 22.72% more in income taxes (plus 20% VAT tax) for "free" healthcare (*with no military)? What are we talking here 80% income tax?


Hilarious!

NO THANK YOU

Butterscotch Stallion
04-13-2011, 02:21 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RSYilgMf9mM" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe> (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%3Ciframe%20title=)Hilarious!

Obushma
04-13-2011, 02:23 PM
There ya go, Ro. A guy who is as vocal a supporter as anyone about the Tea Party agrees with you that the R's didn't cut the Pentagon's budget as you think they should've. Looks like we can all agree and you can quit defending the baby boomers by pointing to the Pentagon. See how easy that was?

The problem is, Ro wants more government, I want less. Ro seems to believe that big government is the solution to the problem, I think it's the root.

According to Ro, big government has been ran by the corporate world since the 70's, thats false. The true conservitives we're "co-opted" by the left in the 60's.

The sound on the video pops a bit, but it's a segment from The Power of Nightmares (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ&feature=related) a BBC film.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3g26gx1bA0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's laughable and down right ignorant to think creating more government agency's will help regulate the problems, and not facilitate them.

Rigs11
04-13-2011, 02:27 PM
The problem is, Ro wants more government, I want less. Ro seems to believe that big government is the solution to the problem, I think it's the root.

According to Ro, big government has been ran by the corporate world since before the 70's. The true conservitives we're "co-opted" by the left in the 60's.
The sound on the video pops a bit, but it's a segment from The Power of Nightmares (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ&feature=related) a BBC film.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3g26gx1bA0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's laughable and down right ignorant to think creating more government agency's will help regulate the problems, and not facilitate them.

i think you guys are too rash on cutting government out, it needs to happen overtime just like the budget cuts do.you can't just start axing programs that people depend on.

Obushma
04-13-2011, 02:30 PM
i think you guys are too rash on cutting government out, it needs to happen overtime just like the budget cuts do.you can't just start axing programs that people depend on.

That's a fear tactic the media uses. I guarantee you Ron Paul would pull every troop home from every war around the world to save money, before he would cut the heat on a low income family.

Mogulseeker
04-13-2011, 02:31 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RSYilgMf9mM" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe> (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%3Ciframe%20title=)Hilarious!

He's in deep concentration.

Chris
04-13-2011, 02:31 PM
Good docu obushma.

Also there are a total of three people sleeping in that video!

Rigs11
04-13-2011, 03:59 PM
That's a fear tactic the media uses. I guarantee you Ron Paul would pull every troop home from every war around the world to save money, before he would cut the heat on a low income family.

really you guarantee he would withdraw all troops? that's a bold statement, a similar one that Obama made and when faced with the implications knew he couldn't do.The mess that Bush left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be solved by just removing troops. Paul if running would be smart to heed these words.

Obushma
04-13-2011, 04:21 PM
.The mess that Bush left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be solved by just removing troops. Paul if running would be smart to heed these words.

You don't know that, we believe our foreign policy of policing the world creates blowback.

You realize you've told him to head the words of two failed presidents, and what a stupid statement that is?

Arkie
04-13-2011, 04:23 PM
Nanny state? And what does Ron Paul propose? A Darwinian economy of nothing but winners and losers? Ron needs to go back and read up on the Gilded Age. Back then, instead of everybody chipping in to provide a safety net for all, the corporations were in charge. They had company stores. And company housing. You worked when they told you to work. Your kids too. And you owed your soul to the company store, like the old song goes. If you, or one of your kids, or other family members got sick, they got better on their own, or they died. If you tried to strike, they had private militias, sanctioned by the politicians and police, who would literally bash your brains out on the street with clubs, or like Henry Ford's thugs, machine gun your ass.

Libertarians believe in the mythology of the "invisible hand" and the perfection of systems, primarily capitalism. Nothing about capitalism is perfect. What we don't need is another failed religion. What we don't need is ideology first, and people last. Teddy Roosevelt laid the first stones of the Progressive edifice in the U.S. I have yet to see half the sense or intelligence that he had in any of the people who now want to tear it all down.

It didn't start out that way.


Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html


Powerful corporations collude with the government to gain more power. That's how it all started. The government gains more power in return. A powerful central government of this huge country of 300,000,000 people will not solve any problems for the people. We've been going the direction of corporatism, imperialism and globalism. In the other direction was a union of unique states with their own rights before the gilded age. Since then, the government has blamed our freedoms, then taken them away.

Tombstone RJ
04-13-2011, 04:57 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RSYilgMf9mM" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe> (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/%3Ciframe%20title=)Hilarious!

Check out the lady with the glasses behind him... ROFL!

Rigs11
04-13-2011, 05:27 PM
You don't know that, we believe our foreign policy of policing the world creates blowback.

You realize you've told him to head the words of two failed presidents, and what a stupid statement that is?

Umm no genius.i said he should heed the words of Obama,its quite different to start wars than to simply leave ones unfinished.if we pulled out of Iraq and afghanistan what would happen?

mhgaffney
04-13-2011, 07:07 PM
really you guarantee he would withdraw all troops? that's a bold statement, a similar one that Obama made and when faced with the implications knew he couldn't do.The mess that Bush left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be solved by just removing troops. Paul if running would be smart to heed these words.

You obviously have learned nothing from the last 20 years.

You are still making excuses for US imperialism.

You are outside -- the pale.

mhgaffney
04-13-2011, 07:10 PM
Look at the bags under Biden's eyes. These guys run on caffeine --

But at some point the whole shebang grinds to a halt. The other day the price of silver broke $41 --

The market is reflecting the actual reality in the US and world -- of uncertainty, fear, despair, and hopelessness.

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 07:24 PM
Umm no genius.i said he should heed the words of Obama,its quite different to start wars than to simply leave ones unfinished.if we pulled out of Iraq and afghanistan what would happen?

The question at this point is if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, what will be different than if we pull out 5 years from now.

Is it going to revert to a ****hole if we pull out now? Definitely. Will it if we delay it 5 more years? Yep. What's the point?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-13-2011, 09:21 PM
He's in deep concentration.

...taking a dump.

Arkie
04-13-2011, 10:08 PM
The question at this point is if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, what will be different than if we pull out 5 years from now.

Is it going to revert to a ****hole if we pull out now? Definitely. Will it if we delay it 5 more years? Yep. What's the point?

There is no difference except that we may have inspired more terrorism.. Bring them home now.

edit: Doh!! actually there is a huge difference of expenses of 5 more years of war and animosity against the US!

Mogulseeker
04-13-2011, 10:34 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wvkNGtcTa-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That One Guy
04-13-2011, 11:22 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wvkNGtcTa-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Haha... I don't know why I laugh at that. The complete loss of dignity across the board, the helplessness of the situation, or the realization that I wanted to punch combat arms folks in the dick when I saw 'em usually, I can only imagine what they were planning while he was rambling.

Rohirrim
04-14-2011, 05:45 AM
Winning hearts and minds. Ha!

That One Guy
04-14-2011, 06:08 AM
Winning hearts and minds. Ha!

The police are as crooked as anyone in that country. You'd make more ground exposing their hearts and minds than winning them over. The best use we ever had for em was kill squads. You call in the Shia special police if you have a high Sunni population that you're having problems with. It'd be like cutting out a tumor with a 13th century broadsword but it got the bad people out. You just never knew how many more they were going to take out just for the fun of it.

Rohirrim
04-14-2011, 07:36 AM
The police are as crooked as anyone in that country. You'd make more ground exposing their hearts and minds than winning them over. The best use we ever had for em was kill squads. You call in the Shia special police if you have a high Sunni population that you're having problems with. It'd be like cutting out a tumor with a 13th century broadsword but it got the bad people out. You just never knew how many more they were going to take out just for the fun of it.

That's the kind of **** you get stuck in when you invade countries you have no business invading.

Jay3
04-14-2011, 07:47 AM
I love that video.

ScottXray
04-14-2011, 07:18 PM
The Boomers' time is over. They're on their way out. Time for this nation to return to sanity.

Fortunately for us "boomers" they haven't taken away our vote, and thanks to improved life expectancy we'll be one of , if not THE, largest voting blocks for the next 20 years or so.

Politicians will NOT want to **** with that....

sorry to disappoint you....But then you can always move to another country if you don't like us being here.

Mogulseeker
04-14-2011, 07:23 PM
Fortunately for us "boomers" they haven't taken away our vote, and thanks to improved life expectancy we'll be one of , if not THE, largest voting blocks for the next 20 years or so.

Politicians will NOT want to **** with that....

sorry to disappoint you....But then you can always move to another country if you don't like us being here.

Do you have kids?

Mogulseeker
04-14-2011, 07:24 PM
Well, that's it.... we're going to have to wage war on the boomers. They're all out of the military by now, so we've got all the guns. Hooray!

They're old and their bones are like paper mache. Let's do this thing.

ScottXray
04-14-2011, 07:27 PM
I have a son 35 and a daughter (turns 4-0 this year)

I have 5 grandkids and I don't envy them what they are going to have to go through in 30 years ( or maybe less) or so.

Obushma
04-14-2011, 07:27 PM
Fortunately for us "boomers" they haven't taken away our vote, and thanks to improved life expectancy we'll be one of , if not THE, largest voting blocks for the next 20 years or so.

Politicians will NOT want to **** with that....

sorry to disappoint you....But then you can always move to another country if you don't like us being here.

Hope you have kids

Mogulseeker
04-14-2011, 07:30 PM
I have a son 35 and a daughter (turns 4-0 this year)

I have 5 grandkids and I don't envy them what they are going to have to go through in 30 years ( or maybe less) or so.

Set up a trust fund for them with your SS.

Hopefully your house is paid off.

That One Guy
04-14-2011, 07:47 PM
Fortunately for us "boomers" they haven't taken away our vote, and thanks to improved life expectancy we'll be one of , if not THE, largest voting blocks for the next 20 years or so.

Politicians will NOT want to **** with that....

sorry to disappoint you....But then you can always move to another country if you don't like us being here.

So you recognize that your personal interests will be protected. Great.

Tell me again about this "it's all about me" generation, Gunns? He isn't arguing the merits of anything, how SS will stay true to its intention and not go bankrupt... he's just saying, "we're gonna get ours, bitches!".

ScottXray
04-14-2011, 07:48 PM
Set up a trust fund for them with your SS.

Hopefully your house is paid off.

Noted: fortunately my daughter married a rich dude....so the kids won't need me to do that. Two of the grandkids are his, the other three from her first marriage but he treats them like his own. They'll all get full college educations.

My sons wife has two of her own from HER first marriage, and she don't want to know" nothin bout birthin any babies". So I expect that unless he finds wife # three, there will be none on his side.


At this point you have to go to the bung-hole theory of life.

You put your kids in a barrel when they are little. You make sure they have and get everything they need or want by passing it to them through the bung hole. When they become adults and you have done all you can you drive the bung into the bung hole.

If they are smart enough to get OUT of the barrel and stirke out on their own you have done your job as a parent.

When I kick they'll get whatever is left. Unfortunately, dollars probably won't be worth much by then.

I owe about 60K on the house....but have enough in the bank to clear it if I need to. Everything else is paid for . I will try not to be a hindrance to my children, although the urge to take revenge sometimes is high.

:spit:

Mogulseeker
04-14-2011, 07:56 PM
Honestly, I think we should do away with SS altogether, but that's just me.

ScottXray
04-14-2011, 08:18 PM
So you recognize that your personal interests will be protected. Great.

Tell me again about this "it's all about me" generation, Gunns? He isn't arguing the merits of anything, how SS will stay true to its intention and not go bankrupt... he's just saying, "we're gonna get ours, b****es!".

The comment was at the rediculous statement that" boomers are on the way out". That is asinine....We aren't going anywhere, soon. Its a reality, no matter what you might think or hope. I didn't raid the trust fund., haven't even received a dime.

As far as SS I've explained my position ....Corrupt and stupid politicians have put us in this position, not baby boomers. The purity of SS was corrupted before even I had the right to vote, in the sixties. The Reagan revolution was financed at the expense of the SS trust fund , and it has been routinely raided ever since.

SS should be reformed... But the reforms need to be in the scope of the program. And the fact that even people that don't need it still take the payments. Retired Millionaires living on bond investments routinely claim their social security. As long as they paid in, I don't have a problem with their claim for benefits. I DO have a problem that they pay NO taxes on their income from those bonds, yet my pension that I will receive will be fully taxed , and because I have planned adequately ahead for my retirement, and will have significant assets, I will have to pay federal income taxes on 85% of the social security I do receive. when I claim it. I'm not mad about paying the taxes....I'm mad that they don't.

Fix That !

It was never originally intended that a 30 year old widow with three children should get Social security payments for her children until they are through with college , just because the father died at age 33. Fix that!

It was never originally intended that that 30 year old widow would also get survivors benefits until she remarried . Fix That!

It was never intended that the government would be able to BORROW the money in the trust fund, taking billions and billions and leaving a promisory note to repay it ( REAL SOON NOW). Fix that!

I don't have a problem with fixing social security. I do have a problem with your position that somehow I and my generation are to blame. About twenty years ago they passed a major increase in taxes for the SS fund. That was supposed to fix it too. We were all told that the SS system was now fixed for the future generations.

We were lied to again. Be pissed at those people. And come up with a reasonable way to correct whats wrong, so that its there for YOUR generation too.

The only two things that are sure are death and taxes. I will pay my taxes , and so will you. And both of us will surely die someday (probably me before you).

TailgateNut
04-14-2011, 08:25 PM
Well, that's it.... we're going to have to wage war on the boomers. They're all out of the military by now, so we've got all the guns. Hooray!

They're old and their bones are like paper mache. Let's do this thing.

:spit:

That One Guy
04-14-2011, 09:15 PM
The comment was at the rediculous statement that" boomers are on the way out". That is asinine....We aren't going anywhere, soon. Its a reality, no matter what you might think or hope. I didn't raid the trust fund., haven't even received a dime.

As far as SS I've explained my position ....Corrupt and stupid politicians have put us in this position, not baby boomers. The purity of SS was corrupted before even I had the right to vote, in the sixties. The Reagan revolution was financed at the expense of the SS trust fund , and it has been routinely raided ever since.

SS should be reformed... But the reforms need to be in the scope of the program. And the fact that even people that don't need it still take the payments. Retired Millionaires living on bond investments routinely claim their social security. As long as they paid in, I don't have a problem with their claim for benefits. I DO have a problem that they pay NO taxes on their income from those bonds, yet my pension that I will receive will be fully taxed , and because I have planned adequately ahead for my retirement, and will have significant assets, I will have to pay federal income taxes on 85% of the social security I do receive. when I claim it. I'm not mad about paying the taxes....I'm mad that they don't.

Fix That !

It was never originally intended that a 30 year old widow with three children should get Social security payments for her children until they are through with college , just because the father died at age 33. Fix that!

It was never originally intended that that 30 year old widow would also get survivors benefits until she remarried . Fix That!

It was never intended that the government would be able to BORROW the money in the trust fund, taking billions and billions and leaving a promisory note to repay it ( REAL SOON NOW). Fix that!

I don't have a problem with fixing social security. I do have a problem with your position that somehow I and my generation are to blame. About twenty years ago they passed a major increase in taxes for the SS fund. That was supposed to fix it too. We were all told that the SS system was now fixed for the future generations.

We were lied to again. Be pissed at those people. And come up with a reasonable way to correct whats wrong, so that its there for YOUR generation too.

The only two things that are sure are death and taxes. I will pay my taxes , and so will you. And both of us will surely die someday (probably me before you).

Very much agreed. Except I still blame you. :D

Obushma
04-15-2011, 09:45 AM
Non-Interventionism for dummies who like westerns.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KwaU1P-vMxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obushma
04-15-2011, 10:00 AM
Rand Paul destroying liberal talking points on Tea Party.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9QiMAcmfK6o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TailgateNut
04-15-2011, 10:20 AM
Rand Paul destroying liberal talking points on Tea Party.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9QiMAcmfK6o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Teabaguettes destroying talking points.ROFL!

How the **** are they going to carry on a conversation or engage in a debate?
All they have are talking points themselves.
****ing party of Hot Air.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2011, 10:29 AM
The Teabaguettes destroying talking points.ROFL!

How the **** are they going to carry on a conversation or engage in a debate?
All they have are talking points themselves.
****ing party of Hot Air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

Mogulseeker
04-15-2011, 10:30 AM
I'm switching GOP next year so I get get Romney in there for the primary, but I'm probably going Obama again.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2011, 10:32 AM
I'm switching GOP next year so I get get Romney in there for the primary, but I'm probably going Obama again.

We do not want Obama to have a second term unless the Democrats lose the Senate.

Obushma
04-15-2011, 10:47 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

...and Paul Ryan is Tea Party how? Hilarious!...and from Krugman on top of that ROFL!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-15-2011, 11:02 AM
I'm switching GOP next year so I get get Romney in there for the primary, but I'm probably going Obama again.

Obama couldn't beat his own meat.

Beantown Bronco
04-15-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm switching GOP next year so I get get Romney in there for the primary, but I'm probably going Obama again.

I don't care what some ridiculous polls may say right now, it's pretty clear that Romney doesn't stand a chance of winning the primary.

Arkie
04-15-2011, 11:15 AM
The Teabaguettes destroying talking points.ROFL!

How the **** are they going to carry on a conversation or engage in a debate?
All they have are talking points themselves.
****ing party of Hot Air.

Who else do we have to bring down the establishment?

Rohirrim
04-15-2011, 11:19 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

Medicare, after all, is a trust. Millions of Americans played fair and paid into Medicare all their lives. Now, Republicans want to change the rules in the middle of the game. They may do it under the banner of "fairness" and "shared responsibility," but there's nothing fair or shared about taking from seniors to give to rich CEOs.

Here's a reality check for Republicans: only 4 percent of the American public actually agrees with their Medicare plan. But if it's not your average taxpayer, who actually stands to profit under his proposal? The answer is big health insurance companies. By shifting the nation's seniors to private insurance, Ryan and the Republicans can continue to line the pockets of insurance companies, providing them with a huge windfall of taxpayer dollars. So it's no surprise that the insurance industry is Ryan's largest campaign donor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bruce-braley/pulling-the-plug-on-medic_b_849679.html

Obushma
04-15-2011, 03:15 PM
Bush or Obama?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4CNouuc-yog" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tombstone RJ
04-15-2011, 03:41 PM
The comment was at the rediculous statement that" boomers are on the way out". That is asinine....We aren't going anywhere, soon. Its a reality, no matter what you might think or hope. I didn't raid the trust fund., haven't even received a dime.

As far as SS I've explained my position ....Corrupt and stupid politicians have put us in this position, not baby boomers. The purity of SS was corrupted before even I had the right to vote, in the sixties. The Reagan revolution was financed at the expense of the SS trust fund , and it has been routinely raided ever since.

SS should be reformed... But the reforms need to be in the scope of the program. And the fact that even people that don't need it still take the payments. Retired Millionaires living on bond investments routinely claim their social security. As long as they paid in, I don't have a problem with their claim for benefits. I DO have a problem that they pay NO taxes on their income from those bonds, yet my pension that I will receive will be fully taxed , and because I have planned adequately ahead for my retirement, and will have significant assets, I will have to pay federal income taxes on 85% of the social security I do receive. when I claim it. I'm not mad about paying the taxes....I'm mad that they don't.

Fix That !

It was never originally intended that a 30 year old widow with three children should get Social security payments for her children until they are through with college , just because the father died at age 33. Fix that!

It was never originally intended that that 30 year old widow would also get survivors benefits until she remarried . Fix That!

It was never intended that the government would be able to BORROW the money in the trust fund, taking billions and billions and leaving a promisory note to repay it ( REAL SOON NOW). Fix that!

I don't have a problem with fixing social security. I do have a problem with your position that somehow I and my generation are to blame. About twenty years ago they passed a major increase in taxes for the SS fund. That was supposed to fix it too. We were all told that the SS system was now fixed for the future generations.

We were lied to again. Be pissed at those people. And come up with a reasonable way to correct whats wrong, so that its there for YOUR generation too.

The only two things that are sure are death and taxes. I will pay my taxes , and so will you. And both of us will surely die someday (probably me before you).

There's many problems with SS that need to be addressed. I also think that wealthy individuals who yes, paid into SS, should get a one time pay out. That is, whatever they paid into SS, they should get that back and then be done collecting.

The other thing about SS is that people are living a long time and collecting on SS for a long time. If you retire at 65 and live until you are 95 that's 30 years of collecting and there's no way that a person living that long paid that much into SS to begin with. So there's that whole problem.

Again, a one time pay out when you retire should be an option for many, many people, especially people who have planned accordingly and don't really need the money. I think it would be much better to pay a person that one lump sum than a monthly check for 30 years.

If a person pays $1500 a year into SS for 45 years that's $67,500.00. That same person is now getting a monthy SS check for what $1000.00 a month or so (I'm guessing). So you pay that out of the next 30 years and it comes to like $360k dollars. If you can just do that one time pay out, then a lot of the money problems in SS will be taken care of.

Arkie
04-15-2011, 04:20 PM
There's many problems with SS that need to be addressed. I also think that wealthy individuals who yes, paid into SS, should get a one time pay out. That is, whatever they paid into SS, they should get that back and then be done collecting.

The other thing about SS is that people are living a long time and collecting on SS for a long time. If you retire at 65 and live until you are 95 that's 30 years of collecting and there's no way that a person living that long paid that much into SS to begin with. So there's that whole problem.

Again, a one time pay out when you retire should be an option for many, many people, especially people who have planned accordingly and don't really need the money. I think it would be much better to pay a person that one lump sum than a monthly check for 30 years.

If a person pays $1500 a year into SS for 45 years that's $67,500.00. That same person is now getting a monthy SS check for what $1000.00 a month or so (I'm guessing). So you pay that out of the next 30 years and it comes to like $360k dollars. If you can just do that one time pay out, then a lot of the money problems in SS will be taken care of.

If it only takes 5 or 6 years to receive back all that you paid in, then the system won't work, and the retirement age should be raised to at least 75.

That One Guy
04-15-2011, 04:39 PM
If it only takes 5 or 6 years to receive back all that you paid in, then the system won't work, and the retirement age should be raised to at least 75.

Don't force people to gamble. The males in my family start kicking it at about 60. Why should I be forced to pay in when my genetics wont likely even get me to that age?

Let people opt out if they want to. It's that simple.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2011, 04:59 PM
Don't force people to gamble. The males in my family start kicking it at about 60. Why should I be forced to pay in when my genetics wont likely even get me to that age?

Let people opt out if they want to. It's that simple.

Not that simple... we'd have to do away with the system with that.

That One Guy
04-15-2011, 05:19 PM
Not that simple... we'd have to do away with the system with that.

I know but saying you can opt out is the only way that may ever succeed in killing it. Nobody will ever take the money from the old people directly.

Obushma
04-15-2011, 05:51 PM
Not that simple... we'd have to do away with the system with that.

Why? Have everyone under 40 choose if they want to opt-out or not, they'd loose all the money they've put into the system, but they'd have a choice to secure their own nest eggs.

I've paid into the system for over 15 years and would be happy to give that money up if I could opt-out.

ScottXray
04-15-2011, 09:08 PM
Why? Have everyone under 40 choose if they want to opt-out or not, they'd loose all the money they've put into the system, but they'd have a choice to secure their own nest eggs.

I've paid into the system for over 15 years and would be happy to give that money up if I could opt-out.

The whole idea that made it work, is everybody that has income pays in. The money that goes in is what the people that are getting SS now are being paid. The excess collected ( which is what so many boomers are paying in ( because they are such a large group)) is what built the trust fund.

If the Trust had not been raided there would be more than enough to pay all the boomers their retirements and there would still have been money left for the current younger people.

But because there are fewer young people paying in , AND the trust fund was largely stolen over the last 30 years there will either have to be less money paid out of the fund, or the tax rate will have to go up to keep it solvent ( that is what the huge increase back in the 80s was supposed to prevent in the first place, and that was done because of the longer life expectancies that we now have.) That increase was stepped in from about 4.5% in about 1975 to the current roughly 8.5%.

If you let people opt out then the fund goes broke even faster.

A one time lump sum tax free return of all the amount paid in ( with interest) would be pretty huge. Over the last 45 years ( my first job was 1965) I have paid in about 145000 personally ( to just SS...add another 35000 to medicare.) My employers also had to MATCH those contributions ( so DOUBLE the figures that the government received). But just MY contributions at say 4% interest would probably come to about 300000 due to the interest compounding. ( I think that would be very conservative and $400000 might be closer, as I have made the maximum contribution every year for the last 25, at least, and started 45 years ago. The first 20 years would have been doubled at least Twice and the next 20 at least once.)

Of course the average boomer probably hasn't paid as much as me. And while the income limit could be raised to about 150000, I don't see taxing all income ( to the proposed unlimited) unless they raise the maximum that SS pays to those people when they file, as they would then get less back than they paid in.

As I said before ....cut out the widows and dependent children payments. If you die before retirement age then your widow gets a lump sum non taxable pay out of what you paid in, maybe with a modest interest rate tacked on. No payments every month. No kids getting SS until they get out of college just cause daddy got drunk and wrecked his car, and died. And no monthly payment cause he disabled himself by being stupid.

Make it like what it was supposed to be....a n insurance policy that builds a cash value if you don't croak, and you take your annuity if you live to retirement age.
The problem is the payments for life to people that hit the system so early some times, and those who barely made minimum payments.

Obushma
04-15-2011, 09:24 PM
The whole idea that made it work, is everybody that has income pays in. The money that goes in is what the people that are getting SS now are being paid. The excess collected ( which is what so many boomers are paying in ( because they are such a large group)) is what built the trust fund.

If the Trust had not been raided there would be more than enough to pay all the boomers their retirements and there would still have been money left for the current younger people.

But because there are fewer young people paying in , AND the trust fund was largely stolen over the last 30 years there will either have to be less money paid out of the fund, or the tax rate will have to go up to keep it solvent ( that is what the huge increase back in the 80s was supposed to prevent in the first place, and that was done because of the longer life expectancies that we now have.) That increase was stepped in from about 4.5% in about 1975 to the current roughly 8.5%.

If you let people opt out then the fund goes broke even faster.

A one time lump sum tax free return of all the amount paid in ( with interest) would be pretty huge. Over the last 45 years ( my first job was 1965) I have paid in about 145000 personally ( to just SS...add another 35000 to medicare.) My employers also had to MATCH those contributions ( so DOUBLE the figures that the government received). But just MY contributions at say 4% interest would probably come to about 300000 due to the interest compounding. ( I think that would be very conservative and $400000 might be closer, as I have made the maximum contribution every year for the last 25, at least, and started 45 years ago. The first 20 years would have been doubled at least Twice and the next 20 at least once.)

Of course the average boomer probably hasn't paid as much as me. And while the income limit could be raised to about 150000, I don't see taxing all income ( to the proposed unlimited) unless they raise the maximum that SS pays to those people when they file, as they would then get less back than they paid in.

As I said before ....cut out the widows and dependent children payments. If you die before retirement age then your widow gets a lump sum non taxable pay out of what you paid in, maybe with a modest interest rate tacked on. No payments every month. No kids getting SS until they get out of college just cause daddy got drunk and wrecked his car, and died. And no monthly payment cause he disabled himself by being stupid.

Make it like what it was supposed to be....a n insurance policy that builds a cash value if you don't croak, and you take your annuity if you live to retirement age.
The problem is the payments for life to people that hit the system so early some times, and those who barely made minimum payments.

So basicly what you're saying is, the system is broke, the younger generations should keep paying in so I can get mine, did I get that right?

ScottXray
04-16-2011, 11:04 AM
So basicly what you're saying is, the system is broke, the younger generations should keep paying in so I can get mine, did I get that right?

Can you READ? Is there anywhere I have said anything remotely like what You say I did?

What I said is that letting people opt out WILL break the system and screw EVERYONE. Lump sum payments that return what you paid in with interest
at retirement age are interesting and also would break the system. I 'd happily
take mine and call it even, but that ISN"T an option.

I don't know of any proposal to give out lump sum payments or stop making payments to widows and surviving children. Other than retirement of the person involved thats not a way that SS pays out. Just makes too much sense I guess.

There is no easy fix, but there are steps that can be taken to make it work...for everyone, including a person like you. The biggest single problem is the trust fund having wotrthless Govt IOUs , and the continuing advancement in age of retirees. For the most part that is not going to continue ( the latest data sets show that the average life expectancy of people in the US is now starting to decline (yes, shocking but true) because of the unhealthy life style most americans have, and the fact that the standard of living is now being lowered. Not to mention that so many can't afford health care. It is unllikely that your generation ( in general) will tend to live as long as previous ones, in general.

But a modest raise in retirement age phased in over time, raising the cap (some) on whats paid in and correcting the money paid out by making it taxable or reducing the amount paid for everyone that has any kind of other income and not just earned income ( yes the RICH) , and making only a lump sum payment to widows and surviving children instead of 15-20 years of support payments (unearned and unmerited) would probably correct what ails it. Then make it against the law for the Fed to "borrow" any more of the fund and make good on some of the IOUs.

From your continued accusations that I'm in it for me, I'm beginning to believe that you just don't want to pay SS taxes....and not because you won't get paid...just that you don't want to pay, period. Maybe you are self employed, which sucks because you'd have to pay double , but the law has been in place for a long time, and is a known cost of doing business here.

The problem is that there isn't a solution that will please everyone. The people collecting SS right now are the survivors of the depression generation, the WW2 and Korean War generation and now the early Boomers ( born 44-49). The bulk of the money expenditures will start increasing as more Boomers (1950-65) start hitting the roles. (who by the way also had their retirement age already raised to 67 for those born after 55). The Generations born before the Boomers will be die out sooner. They also paid the least into the fund, and have gotten the most back. Too bad for me, and everyone else that came after them.

Yes, I want SS to continue. I do have a vested interest in it. But , I also know that your generation cannot make payments into it just to support the boomers as they get older. The model doens't work , as CURRENTLY defined.

It can be fixed, and due to the way our political system works it is NOT going to go away. So push your congressman and senators to fix it, and stop whining about how unfair it all is.

Arkie
04-16-2011, 11:11 AM
Opting out would mean less going in, and then less being paid back. It would just be a smaller ponzi scheme.

Obushma
04-16-2011, 12:28 PM
Opting out would mean less going in, and then less being paid back. It would just be a smaller ponzi scheme.

I choose to not support said ponzi scheme. I hope other young Americans choose to do so as well.

That One Guy
04-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Can you READ? Is there anywhere I have said anything remotely like what You say I did?

What I said is that letting people opt out WILL break the system and screw EVERYONE. Lump sum payments that return what you paid in with interest
at retirement age are interesting and also would break the system. I 'd happily
take mine and call it even, but that ISN"T an option.

I don't know of any proposal to give out lump sum payments or stop making payments to widows and surviving children. Other than retirement of the person involved thats not a way that SS pays out. Just makes too much sense I guess.

There is no easy fix, but there are steps that can be taken to make it work...for everyone, including a person like you. The biggest single problem is the trust fund having wotrthless Govt IOUs , and the continuing advancement in age of retirees. For the most part that is not going to continue ( the latest data sets show that the average life expectancy of people in the US is now starting to decline (yes, shocking but true) because of the unhealthy life style most americans have, and the fact that the standard of living is now being lowered. Not to mention that so many can't afford health care. It is unllikely that your generation ( in general) will tend to live as long as previous ones, in general.

But a modest raise in retirement age phased in over time, raising the cap (some) on whats paid in and correcting the money paid out by making it taxable or reducing the amount paid for everyone that has any kind of other income and not just earned income ( yes the RICH) , and making only a lump sum payment to widows and surviving children instead of 15-20 years of support payments (unearned and unmerited) would probably correct what ails it. Then make it against the law for the Fed to "borrow" any more of the fund and make good on some of the IOUs.

From your continued accusations that I'm in it for me, I'm beginning to believe that you just don't want to pay SS taxes....and not because you won't get paid...just that you don't want to pay, period. Maybe you are self employed, which sucks because you'd have to pay double , but the law has been in place for a long time, and is a known cost of doing business here.

The problem is that there isn't a solution that will please everyone. The people collecting SS right now are the survivors of the depression generation, the WW2 and Korean War generation and now the early Boomers ( born 44-49). The bulk of the money expenditures will start increasing as more Boomers (1950-65) start hitting the roles. (who by the way also had their retirement age already raised to 67 for those born after 55). The Generations born before the Boomers will be die out sooner. They also paid the least into the fund, and have gotten the most back. Too bad for me, and everyone else that came after them.

Yes, I want SS to continue. I do have a vested interest in it. But , I also know that your generation cannot make payments into it just to support the boomers as they get older. The model doens't work , as CURRENTLY defined.

It can be fixed, and due to the way our political system works it is NOT going to go away. So push your congressman and senators to fix it, and stop whining about how unfair it all is.

I don't want to play the SS game, I want to take responsibility for my own life, and I don't want to be forced to support others. I want SS to crash and burn. If I work hard and choose to retire at 55, I don't want to be sitting round waiting another 10-15 years until the government decides to unlock my money. I wish the elected officials would just start to get rid of the program but it's just ANOTHER entitlement program that everyone would cry till they peed themselves if it were taken away.

"But I want my Ponzi scheme!!! WAAAAAAAH..."

TailgateNut
04-16-2011, 02:12 PM
I choose to not support said ponzi scheme. I hope other young Americans choose to do so as well.


We'll see how that works out for you clowns.

That One Guy
04-16-2011, 02:34 PM
We'll see how that works out for you clowns.

No, we wont, because obviously entitlements are the lifeblood of politics. Promise people money, they'll vote for you. Noone gets elected on the promise that they'll take away programs like SS.

TailgateNut
04-16-2011, 02:42 PM
No, we wont, because obviously entitlements are the lifeblood of politics. Promise people money, they'll vote for you. Noone gets elected on the promise that they'll take away programs like SS.

Well, if you and the other "brainiac" can come up with a solution, then run for office. Otherwise, just STFU and deal with the fact that you can't just steal monies owed to those who paid in for a lifetime, just because generation W (worthless) doesn't want to contribute.

That One Guy
04-16-2011, 03:19 PM
Well, if you and the other "brainiac" can come up with a solution, then run for office. Otherwise, just STFU and deal with the fact that you can't just steal monies owed to those who paid in for a lifetime, just because generation W (worthless) doesn't want to contribute.

Owed to you by who exactly? Some brain trust somewhere said "Lets throw all this money into the government and then force our kids to pay us back - double or even triple! That'll be a great idea!"...

I never saw any of your money nor owe you anything. You're knocking on the wrong door.

chadta
04-16-2011, 05:24 PM
Well, if you and the other "brainiac" can come up with a solution, then run for office. Otherwise, just STFU and deal with the fact that you can't just steal monies owed to those who paid in for a lifetime, just because generation W (worthless) doesn't want to contribute.

So its ok to cut retirement plans and benefits for union workers, but its not ok when it happens to you eh ?

awww that really is too bad.

I hope every one of you arrogant pricks that thinks that belonging to a union makes anybody less of a person loses every penny you think you have coming to you.

That One Guy
04-16-2011, 05:47 PM
So its ok to cut retirement plans and benefits for union workers, but its not ok when it happens to you eh ?

awww that really is too bad.

I hope every one of you arrogant pricks that thinks that belonging to a union makes anybody less of a person loses every penny you think you have coming to you.

Excellent point. Well done.

Obushma
04-16-2011, 06:09 PM
So its ok to cut retirement plans and benefits for union workers, but its not ok when it happens to you eh ?

awww that really is too bad.

I hope every one of you arrogant pricks that thinks that belonging to a union makes anybody less of a person loses every penny you think you have coming to you.

He talks out of two sides of his face, he's old and ignorant so I basically ignore him. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, type of mentality.

TailgateNut
04-16-2011, 07:08 PM
He talks out of two sides of his face, he's old and ignorant so I basically ignore him. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, type of mentality.

Old and ignorant?

**** you.

You wouldn't dare say that **** to my face, and you are correct, you couldn't teach anyone anything.

Obushma
04-16-2011, 07:39 PM
Old and ignorant?

**** you.

You wouldn't dare say that **** to my face, and you are correct, you couldn't teach anyone anything.

I guarantee you I would. If you were a rapper you'd be Old'Ignorant Bastard.

That One Guy
04-16-2011, 07:49 PM
Internet fightttttttttt!

ScottXray
04-16-2011, 09:48 PM
I choose to not support said ponzi scheme. I hope other young Americans choose to do so as well.

So you are just a whiner and malcontent.

You haven't offered a single other opinion or suggestion, other than you don't want to pay. You even state that you won't . I 'm glad you make it so clear that you are exactly what you accuse me of being. Selfish and only in it for what YOU can get. Screw everyone else.

Pot meet kettle!

Either come up with a constructive suggestion on how to fix it, that doesn't screw everyone else ( and no, opting out is NOT constructive since it screws everyone before you, (and just because you don't want your previous contributions back, does NOT make you a saint)) or at least explain what makes you so special. Why should YOU not have to pay the same taxes as anyone else?

When it gets right down to it, this (*SS) is a TAX. I have paid it all my working life. I have not been happy about it many times. The tax was established back in the 30s. It was raised several times over the years. Employers have to pay it also.

The reason for the TAX was to ensure that workers would have SOME form of retirement income, in spite of, what happened to them during their lives. You, obviously, are such an intelligent person, that you will be wealthy at 55 and not need this public safety net. ( Just like all those others that thought the same thing, right up until the financial melt down two and one half years ago). Just like the workers who thought their Enron 401Ks were secure and safe.

Man, are you ignorant!

Arkie
04-16-2011, 11:06 PM
Set up a trust fund for them with your SS.

Hopefully your house is paid off.

Why can't they set up their own trust fund? Hopefully, they're making more than their parents SS check. It's the "who's gonna take care of me?" attitude. If it's not the government, then it's Dad's SS. (not to mention, parents completely taking care of their snot-nosed little brats for the first 18 years of their lives)

Mogulseeker
04-17-2011, 12:07 AM
Why can't they set up their own trust fund? Hopefully, they're making more than their parents SS check. It's the "who's gonna take care of me?" attitude. If it's not the government, then it's Dad's SS. (not to mention, parents completely taking care of their snot-nosed little brats for the first 18 years of their lives)

If someone is not willing/able to take care of kids until they're 18... and they have kids... they're an idiot.

chadta
04-17-2011, 04:44 AM
If someone is not willing/able to take care of kids until they're 18... and they have kids... they're an idiot.

A good number of parents now arent even willing to take care of the kids until they turn 5, off to daycare as soon as they can for as long as they can. We have laws here that kids cant spend more than 11 hours a day in daycare, and ya know what, they still do. Why have kids if you want somebody else to raise them ?


You wouldn't dare say that **** to my face

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/internet-tough-guy.jpg

ScottXray
04-17-2011, 08:16 AM
It really isn't so much the "who is going t take care of me " thing as much as
the fact that there really was NO retirement before SS.

When the depression started it was common that people worked right up until the day they died , or until they simply could not physically do so anymore. When that happened they didn't usually get a pension, and if they didn't have savings of their own they simply had to hope for charity......or die. It was not an easy life , and the
common person did NOT own their own home and did not have much in savings.
To top it all off , many Banks failed and people who had savings couldn't get it or lost it when the banks closed.

When millions were seeking jobs the few jobs that were available did not go to the weak. The few charities that had anything were overwhelmed. A lot of people, especially Older people lost everything , and many starved. To Death!

That is the history of WHY SS was started. Because no matter how well planned and well thought out you own private plan might be, circumstances can overwhelm anyone. Your bank might fail and you lose your money. Your company might steal your pension fund. The stock market might crash and you lose your investments. SS was to be there as a safety net that could never fail.

That is why so many of the laws we now have are in place. The FDIC , the SEC, and Social Security. And most of you don't realise how very, very, close we came to the entire system collapsing, and the complete failure of our government and economic system at the end of Bushes term.

What is so laughable about the whole thing is that the Great Depressions causes were so eerily similar to the setup that has caused the Great Recession. Tax cuts for the rich, an unrestricted stock market, an unreasonable expectation that housing will always increase in value and the public and Banks throwing money into the stock market.

The Republicans have been trying to disassemble all the programs that FDR and the New Deal put in place for the last 50 years. And slowly , over time they managed to weaken the SEC, and failed to enforce or changed the regulations that prevented banks from speculating in the stock market.

All under the guise that a "free market" economy would regulate itself. ((something that has nothing to do with real Human reactions to situations because people are GREEDY, and we have never had a truly free market anyway.)

Those that refuse to listen or cannot learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Some of you need to study.

Our government does need to stop spending and we do need to institute some reforms and cuts. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Obushma
04-17-2011, 09:28 AM
So you are just a whiner and malcontent.

You haven't offered a single other opinion or suggestion, other than you don't want to pay. You even state that you won't . I 'm glad you make it so clear that you are exactly what you accuse me of being. Selfish and only in it for what YOU can get. Screw everyone else.

Pot meet kettle!

Either come up with a constructive suggestion on how to fix it, that doesn't screw everyone else ( and no, opting out is NOT constructive since it screws everyone before you, (and just because you don't want your previous contributions back, does NOT make you a saint)) or at least explain what makes you so special. Why should YOU not have to pay the same taxes as anyone else?

When it gets right down to it, this (*SS) is a TAX. I have paid it all my working life. I have not been happy about it many times. The tax was established back in the 30s. It was raised several times over the years. Employers have to pay it also.

The reason for the TAX was to ensure that workers would have SOME form of retirement income, in spite of, what happened to them during their lives. You, obviously, are such an intelligent person, that you will be wealthy at 55 and not need this public safety net. ( Just like all those others that thought the same thing, right up until the financial melt down two and one half years ago). Just like the workers who thought their Enron 401Ks were secure and safe.

Man, are you ignorant!

I'm just trying to understand your position. You say that SS is broke, that the government and politicians stole the money.

Yet you expect people to want to continue that system? You expect the younger generations, to not believe the government and politicians will repeat the process? You expect me to come up with an answer on how to fix a system that is broke? Where is your solution?

To just keep paying money into said ponzi scheme, thats your answer?

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2011, 10:02 AM
So you are just a whiner and malcontent.

You haven't offered a single other opinion or suggestion, other than you don't want to pay. You even state that you won't . I 'm glad you make it so clear that you are exactly what you accuse me of being. Selfish and only in it for what YOU can get. Screw everyone else.

Pot meet kettle!

Either come up with a constructive suggestion on how to fix it, that doesn't screw everyone else ( and no, opting out is NOT constructive since it screws everyone before you, (and just because you don't want your previous contributions back, does NOT make you a saint)) or at least explain what makes you so special. Why should YOU not have to pay the same taxes as anyone else?

When it gets right down to it, this (*SS) is a TAX. I have paid it all my working life. I have not been happy about it many times. The tax was established back in the 30s. It was raised several times over the years. Employers have to pay it also.

The reason for the TAX was to ensure that workers would have SOME form of retirement income, in spite of, what happened to them during their lives. You, obviously, are such an intelligent person, that you will be wealthy at 55 and not need this public safety net. ( Just like all those others that thought the same thing, right up until the financial melt down two and one half years ago). Just like the workers who thought their Enron 401Ks were secure and safe.

Man, are you ignorant!

would you agree to a one time pay out for all the SS Tax money you have paid over your working life time, instead of a monthly check?

TailgateNut
04-17-2011, 01:39 PM
would you agree to a one time pay out for all the SS Tax money you have paid over your working life time, instead of a monthly check?

Yep!

ScottXray
04-17-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm just trying to understand your position. You say that SS is broke, that the government and politicians stole the money.

Yet you expect people to want to continue that system? You expect the younger generations, to not believe the government and politicians will repeat the process? You expect me to come up with an answer on how to fix a system that is broke? Where is your solution?

To just keep paying money into said ponzi scheme, thats your answer?

Social security is not broke ( and I never said that). It will run into a problem if is not modified. And it could be broke by 2047 if its not changed. While that is not my problem, as I will be long gone before then, I also feel that its partially my responsibility to try to fix it. If that means being taxed higher, or having benefits reduced a bit, I'll accept it. If everyone that receives benefits pays taxes on all their income, that is fair.

I have already laid out several means that might solve it, and preserve it for your generation too. It also needs to be made secure against the ability of the government to misuse it, and misuse its funds. Leaving it in the hands of each congress to modify ( or steal from) it is one of the problems that needs to be fixed. At the same time it can't be trusted to have Wall street manage the funds, as they will turn it into a cash cow for the security firms that almost brought everything down 2 years ago ( imagine if SS had been privatised like what was suggested), and there has to be some form of oversight to ensure it is well managed and safe, and getting the maximum return it can. Perhaps SS should be made somewhat independent from the current Federal government, and we should hold elections of the people that run it, under a charter that is created when it is transferred to a more or less Private fund, with the taxing authority of the Government, to ensure it is funded. I don't pretend to know all the answers, just that it CAN be done if enough pressure is put on congress to REALLY fix it.

One of the main misconceptions about SS is that people think it is supposed to be
what they can retire on. It was never meant to perform that function. It is simply a saftey net to Supplement what the individual has saved for himself or earned during his working years. A fall back position in case all the individuals plans go bad. That is why it is called Supplemental Social Security income. Unfortunately, most people think that it has a greater scope of purpose.

At the same time SS is NOT part of the deficit problem! Except for what the government has borrowed and owes ( part of the national debt is what SS is owed)
it is sound, as of right now. SS does not add one dime to the Federal deficit.

Medicare is another story.

As far as taking a lump sum payment at retirement age...I would not have a problem with that if it was NOT taxed ( but I do think that the fund would be wiped out if enough people took those types of payments). And the main problem with that is that most people are not smart enough to manage those funds themselves.
They would waste it, spend it, and then end up on welfare anyway. These are the ones that think SS is their retirement fund.

As I said, there is NO solution that would make everyone happy. Most everyone will object to whatever happens.

In a representative democracy like ours it is OUR job to ensure that the government is doing its job in a manner that it should. We are supposed to pay attention to what is going on. Not enough of us have been doing our job, and those that were, have been shouted down, time and again.

The internet gives all of us a forum, but unfortunately the message gets lost in the millions of posts of background noise, that it ends up as. And the mainstream media seems to be not interested in what people REALLY want and tries to get the focus, instead, on what their corporations think tanks project will result if they stir up this hornets nest, or that.

There was a saying about media ( TV and Raido) in the late 70s and Early eighties. "the medium IS the message". It is even more true now than then. Not enough people bother to try to think anymore. They have their thought trains given to them by the different news agencies, pre formulated to give the desired result. Increase the level of noise and drown out the coherent thought process.

This is what I meant when I mentioned I don't envy my grandchildren. The long term outlook for this country may be very bad.

Jay3
04-17-2011, 03:51 PM
Social Security should be converted to a 401(k) style individual account. It's what empowered and wealthy people have chosen time and time again. A nest egg that grows, can be used in old age, left to heirs, etc. would have positive social benefit, because it would help the lower income classes develop some of those intergenerational ties that help stabilized families and provide an environment for expansion of the middle class.

To say it simply -- most of our social programs should be geared towards getting people to live like owners. Owners tend to take care of important things, because they have a stake.

ScottXray
04-17-2011, 05:36 PM
Social Security should be converted to a 401(k) style individual account. It's what empowered and wealthy people have chosen time and time again. A nest egg that grows, can be used in old age, left to heirs, etc. would have positive social benefit, because it would help the lower income classes develop some of those intergenerational ties that help stabilized families and provide an environment for expansion of the middle class.

To say it simply -- most of our social programs should be geared towards getting people to live like owners. Owners tend to take care of important things, because they have a stake.

Fairly good point but I disagree that it should exactly be like a 401K.

It should be a fund that you own individual shares in, but that you have no control over the investments it makes ( other than say electing a controlling board every 2 years). And no one should be allowed to serve there for more than 4-6 years. No retirement , no massive pay, and no ties allowed to any other public firm. Generating a positive return for the fund should result in a bonus, paid only when you are forced out. Anyone caught subverting the fund or misusing it should have very stiff prison terms and loss of all their assets, and their familys assets. It should be a position of public TRUST.
Of course there would have to be otheres that run the day to day aspects and record keeping . They would be non-controlling and just normal employees.

How to implement it effectively would be a problem. You need to find a way to make everyone pay that tax on all transactions that net them income, and pay the tax on the amount up to the (then ) current limit . Perhaps a SS excise tax on those that make their money from trading stocks and bonds. (this also allows you to see just how much money is changing hands and figure who the real tax cheats are). Individuals could make pre and post tax additional contributions to the fund if they choose, like a 401K , and there should be no limit on the amount you could put in. It just buys additional shares.

Anyway the fund shares should be used to buy an annuity for the individual when they want to cash out. If someone thinks they have enough to cash out at 55, they can buy the annuity that would get them. Their shares would be wiped out.

A new account would start the minute they generate additional income and they would pay the tax , with the option to get it back each year as long as they owe no federal tax on it ( witholding would apply), or let it build a second annuity if they chose to.

On second thought this leaves out anyone that cannot generate income on their own ( disabled , etc.) Part of our contributions go to those less fortunate , so that they can live with a minimal amount of comfort. That has to continue if we think of ourselves as any type of society worth being part of. So two funds ( one for general welfare of all, and one personal) would have to be kept.

Bronco Yoda
04-17-2011, 07:36 PM
Too much crying. Boo ****ing hooooo I have to pay taxes!

Mogulseeker
04-17-2011, 08:22 PM
You know what, I'm just going to quote one of my Econ professors, Ilene Grabel (http://www.du.edu/korbel/facultyresearch/faculty/Grabel_Ilene.html) (paraphrased), and leave it at that:

‘Deficits are a cyclical part of the trade process, and large deficits aren't as dire as people make them out to be. Eventually the balance has to come back to equilibrium and revenue increases. But there is a breaking point. And that’s the 14.6 trillion dollar question.’

What I’m worried about is the trade deficit as it relates to production. I try to save, but that’s hard to do when I’m a perpetual student getting my Phd in International Security, but I think one of the best things an American can do for the US economy is to buy as many products as they can from similar first-world economies… ie, not buying stuff made in China and going for made in USA. I try to roll like that, but its hard when you’re looking at $15 dollar jeans at Walmart and $200 dollar jeans at True Religion.

TailgateNut
04-17-2011, 08:24 PM
Too much crying. Boo ****ing hooooo I have to pay taxes!


From some of the same people who, during the recent past were cheerleaders for waging war without paying for it. No physical sacrifices nor any financial sacrifices.

ScottXray
04-17-2011, 09:14 PM
You know what, I'm just going to quote one of my Econ professors, Ilene Grabel (http://www.du.edu/korbel/facultyresearch/faculty/Grabel_Ilene.html) (paraphrased), and leave it at that:

‘Deficits are a cyclical part of the trade process, and large deficits aren't as dire as people make them out to be. Eventually the balance has to come back to equilibrium and revenue increases. But there is a breaking point. And that’s the 14.6 trillion dollar question.’

What I’m worried about is the trade deficit as it relates to production. I try to save, but that’s hard to do when I’m a perpetual student getting my Phd in International Security, but I think one of the best things an American can do for the US economy is to buy as many products as they can from similar first-world economies… ie, not buying stuff made in China and going for made in USA. I try to roll like that, but its hard when you’re looking at $15 dollar jeans at Walmart and $200 dollar jeans at True Religion.
agreed. we need to get manufacturing in this country going again in order for there to be a fiar shot at keeping OUR workers going.

Repealing nafta and putting tariffs on anything that hurts US industrial capacity would be a start. Earlier I mentioned that rebuilding our infrastructure and hi speed rail should be done with only US manufactured Steel. We are going to need a vaible steel industry HERE to continue to compete ( both economically and militarily) in the future.
Or do you think china will manufacture our tanks and ships for us?

Obushma
04-17-2011, 09:18 PM
You know what, I'm just going to quote one of my Econ professors, Ilene Grabel (http://www.du.edu/korbel/facultyresearch/faculty/Grabel_Ilene.html) (paraphrased), and leave it at that:

‘Deficits are a cyclical part of the trade process, and large deficits aren't as dire as people make them out to be. Eventually the balance has to come back to equilibrium and revenue increases. But there is a breaking point. And that’s the 14.6 trillion dollar question.’

What I’m worried about is the trade deficit as it relates to production. I try to save, but that’s hard to do when I’m a perpetual student getting my Phd in International Security, but I think one of the best things an American can do for the US economy is to buy as many products as they can from similar first-world economies… ie, not buying stuff made in China and going for made in USA. I try to roll like that, but its hard when you’re looking at $15 dollar jeans at Walmart and $200 dollar jeans at True Religion.

Spoken like a true Keynesian.

Mogulseeker
04-17-2011, 11:47 PM
agreed. we need to get manufacturing in this country going again in order for there to be a fiar shot at keeping OUR workers going.

Repealing nafta and putting tariffs on anything that hurts US industrial capacity would be a start. Earlier I mentioned that rebuilding our infrastructure and hi speed rail should be done with only US manufactured Steel. We are going to need a vaible steel industry HERE to continue to compete ( both economically and militarily) in the future.
Or do you think china will manufacture our tanks and ships for us?

Hmm, well the tariffs and NAFTA thing was basically the point... having free trade and allowing currencies to float will eventually balance the trade equilibrium. So they're saying don't repeal NAFTA, because the trade balance will eventually shift. IE, China builds its wealth through the trade deficit ... that increases GNP ... that increases employee wages ... that increases the cost to export, and voila, American companies move back to the USA.

But I agree 100% about the steel thing. That goes with any natural resource... but also with intellectual capital. That is, you can make alot of money in the tech industry, and it doesn't take a whole lot of material to build a computer.

The US used to create, and that's what it is going to have to do if we want to stay prosperous in the coming generations.

We need more scientists and engineers. I feel like a douce for dropping my engineering minor my junio year in college, because I don't produce. I'm actually considering going back to get an MA in engineering because of the fact.

For some reason, two movies are coming to mind to me right now: Gran Torino and Wall Street.

Grand Torino because I watched that today for the second time since a couple years ago. This time I really identified with Clint Eastwood's character, and I wanted to punch his kids/grand kids in the face. Great movie.

A couple of my favorite quotes come from Wall Street, even if you leave out the "Greed is good" speech.... the one that reminds me of the culture of Wall Street right now is the scene where Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) beats the **** out of Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), and Fox asked him "When is it enough? What's you're Price?" .... Gekko responds "I'll tell you me price ... more."

TonyR
04-18-2011, 09:38 AM
Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes

ScottXray
04-18-2011, 09:49 AM
Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes

Apparently SOME of the wealthy have consciences. Good for them. Reforming the tax code is REALLY necessary ...it inflicts a forced conscience on those that don't have one of their own.

That One Guy
04-18-2011, 11:38 AM
Apparently SOME of the wealthy have consciences. Good for them. Reforming the tax code is REALLY necessary ...it inflicts a forced conscience on those that don't have one of their own.

That's where the BS comes in for me. A "forced conscience". That's bogus.

I'll pay for common good items. Tax me for roads, tax me for school, tax me for... but DON'T tax me for the poor, don't tax me for social support programs, etc. THAT conscience should be voluntary. Some things support the common good and some don't. Those that don't shouldn't be forced.

Mogulseeker
04-18-2011, 01:04 PM
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

https://motherjones.com/files/images/400-top-taxpayers.png

https://motherjones.com/files/images/falling_tax_rates.png

http://motherjones.com/files/images/tax_cuts2.png

http://motherjones.com/files/images/payroll-income_0.png

https://motherjones.com/files/images/corp_taxes.png

TailgateNut
04-18-2011, 01:13 PM
That's where the BS comes in for me. A "forced conscience". That's bogus.

I'll pay for common good items. Tax me for roads, tax me for school, tax me for... but DON'T tax me for the poor, don't tax me for social support programs, etc. THAT conscience should be voluntary. Some things support the common good and some don't. Those that don't shouldn't be forced.


I usually don't use this option, but, you might want to consider moving to another country.

TailgateNut
04-18-2011, 01:17 PM
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

https://motherjones.com/files/images/400-top-taxpayers.png

https://motherjones.com/files/images/falling_tax_rates.png

http://motherjones.com/files/images/tax_cuts2.png

http://motherjones.com/files/images/payroll-income_0.png

https://motherjones.com/files/images/corp_taxes.png


But, we still hear whining from the hobknobbers of the rich.

That One Guy
04-18-2011, 02:54 PM
I usually don't use this option, but, you might want to consider moving to another country.

It's been a slow realization the last few years that this may be the right answer as well. The nostalgia though would probably prevent me from giving up US citizenship though so it would't make a big difference.

This is why I wish states made policies rather than Fed. You can't escape fed policies.

ScottXray
04-18-2011, 07:53 PM
That's where the BS comes in for me. A "forced conscience". That's bogus.

I'll pay for common good items. Tax me for roads, tax me for school, tax me for... but DON'T tax me for the poor, don't tax me for social support programs, etc. THAT conscience should be voluntary. Some things support the common good and some don't. Those that don't shouldn't be forced.

The problem is that too many people don't even want to pay for the commons that we all benefit from. The roads, sewer systems , water systems, Schools,
Bridges, police and fire departments, the really needed defense systems and armed forces ( about 15% of what we have now maybe). The research that built the internet, developed cell phone technology and even the space technology ( which resulted in the personal computers we use to come here as well as a good bit of the tech that pervades the rest of our lives).

Limiting what government spends on those and the social programs is fine...but everyone ( including corporations ) benefit from all these.

Mogulseeker
04-21-2011, 04:05 PM
The problem is that too many people don't even want to pay for the commons that we all benefit from. The roads, sewer systems , water systems, Schools,
Bridges, police and fire departments, the really needed defense systems and armed forces ( about 15% of what we have now maybe). The research that built the internet, developed cell phone technology and even the space technology ( which resulted in the personal computers we use to come here as well as a good bit of the tech that pervades the rest of our lives).

Limiting what government spends on those and the social programs is fine...but everyone ( including corporations ) benefit from all these.

I read a recent academic essay from an Economist, I believe it was James Fallows, that was basically summed up like this, "Americans are living the benefits of a socialist society, financed through debt while paying the taxes of a free-market system... that is unsustainable."

Arkie
04-21-2011, 05:34 PM
We are way too good at spending. We keep falling behind other countries in education, but we should lead in that area too. The Swiss are the only country that spends more money per student. The Koreans have higher test scores and one of the lowest per student costs.

Obushma
04-28-2011, 12:59 PM
Keynes Vs Hayek Round Two

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GTQnarzmTOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

great video :thumbs:

alkemical
04-28-2011, 01:03 PM
Are you reading my google reader feed?

LOL!

Mogulseeker
05-25-2011, 02:06 AM
Someone posted a WKUK video in another thread, so I added it to my instant on Netflix... Given our earlier debate on education... I thought this was hilarious:

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wqw527ivrQE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bronco Yoda
05-25-2011, 02:46 AM
It really isn't so much the "who is going t take care of me " thing as much as
the fact that there really was NO retirement before SS.

When the depression started it was common that people worked right up until the day they died , or until they simply could not physically do so anymore. When that happened they didn't usually get a pension, and if they didn't have savings of their own they simply had to hope for charity......or die. It was not an easy life , and the
common person did NOT own their own home and did not have much in savings.
To top it all off , many Banks failed and people who had savings couldn't get it or lost it when the banks closed.

When millions were seeking jobs the few jobs that were available did not go to the weak. The few charities that had anything were overwhelmed. A lot of people, especially Older people lost everything , and many starved. To Death!

That is the history of WHY SS was started. Because no matter how well planned and well thought out you own private plan might be, circumstances can overwhelm anyone. Your bank might fail and you lose your money. Your company might steal your pension fund. The stock market might crash and you lose your investments. SS was to be there as a safety net that could never fail.

That is why so many of the laws we now have are in place. The FDIC , the SEC, and Social Security. And most of you don't realise how very, very, close we came to the entire system collapsing, and the complete failure of our government and economic system at the end of Bushes term.

What is so laughable about the whole thing is that the Great Depressions causes were so eerily similar to the setup that has caused the Great Recession. Tax cuts for the rich, an unrestricted stock market, an unreasonable expectation that housing will always increase in value and the public and Banks throwing money into the stock market.

The Republicans have been trying to disassemble all the programs that FDR and the New Deal put in place for the last 50 years. And slowly , over time they managed to weaken the SEC, and failed to enforce or changed the regulations that prevented banks from speculating in the stock market.

All under the guise that a "free market" economy would regulate itself. ((something that has nothing to do with real Human reactions to situations because people are GREEDY, and we have never had a truly free market anyway.)

Those that refuse to listen or cannot learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Some of you need to study.

Our government does need to stop spending and we do need to institute some reforms and cuts. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.


Good post

Rohirrim
05-25-2011, 08:14 AM
Funneling all the wealth of a country into the pockets of the few is the recipe for disaster.

Always has been.

Always will be.

JJG
05-25-2011, 08:45 AM
We are way too good at spending. We keep falling behind other countries in education, but we should lead in that area too. The Swiss are the only country that spends more money per student. The Koreans have higher test scores and one of the lowest per student costs.

Like most other things in our society, we seem to think throwing money at something will make it better. Sure, teachers/ school districts can do better, but its never going to drastically improve until parents do a better job at home. It's the culture that needs to change, which is a much harder, and less popular, than just pumping more money into the system. Parents need to actually be involved in their kids school work and push them to succeed.

Inkana7
05-25-2011, 09:47 AM
Like most other things in our society, we seem to think throwing money at something will make it better. Sure, teachers/ school districts can do better, but its never going to drastically improve until parents do a better job at home. It's the culture that needs to change, which is a much harder, and less popular, than just pumping more money into the system. Parents need to actually be involved in their kids school work and push them to succeed.

This is correct.

gyldenlove
05-25-2011, 09:54 AM
Like most other things in our society, we seem to think throwing money at something will make it better. Sure, teachers/ school districts can do better, but its never going to drastically improve until parents do a better job at home. It's the culture that needs to change, which is a much harder, and less popular, than just pumping more money into the system. Parents need to actually be involved in their kids school work and push them to succeed.

You also need to stop this nonsense of having tests all the damn time, and having new classes every semester or every year. Here is how a 14 week class in university goes down: 2 first weeks are spent refreshing things the students should already know if they have taken the prerequisite classes, 4 weeks are spent teaching the actual material, 1 weeks is spent refreshing the first 6 weeks and having the midterm, then 5 weeks of teaching more material and 2 weeks of refreshing the course and preparing for the final exam - of the 14 weeks, only 9 weeks are spent teaching new material out of 14 (64%), the rest of the time is effectively wasted. Cutting down the number of tests but requiring more of homework and in class assignments is much more efficient and allows for longer periods of learning including in depth work that is now completely ignored.

While increased funding would help, especially to schools who have a lot of difficult students, an improved teaching philosophy and curriculum would also help tremendously and that **** is free.

JJG
05-25-2011, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE=gyldenlove;3190259]You also need to stop this nonsense of having tests all the damn time, and having new classes every semester or every year. Here is how a 14 week class in university goes down: 2 first weeks are spent refreshing things the students should already know if they have taken the prerequisite classes, 4 weeks are spent teaching the actual material, 1 weeks is spent refreshing the first 6 weeks and having the midterm, then 5 weeks of teaching more material and 2 weeks of refreshing the course and preparing for the final exam - of the 14 weeks, only 9 weeks are spent teaching new material out of 14 (64%), the rest of the time is effectively wasted. Cutting down the number of tests but requiring more of homework and in class assignments is much more efficient and allows for longer periods of learning including in depth work that is now completely ignored.

While increased funding would help, especially to schools who have a lot of difficult students, an improved teaching philosophy and curriculum would also help tremendously and that **** is free.[/
QUOTE]
Which teaching philosophy should be used? How is it improved? Where is the free curriculum? what about training teachers on the new philosophy? What good is if the kids don't do it, and the parents couldn't care less?

It may or may not help, but it's NOT free.

Arkie
05-25-2011, 11:05 AM
All under the guise that a "free market" economy would regulate itself. ((something that has nothing to do with real Human reactions to situations because people are GREEDY, and we have never had a truly free market anyway.)


Politicians are people too.

jsco70
05-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Like most other things in our society, we seem to think throwing money at something will make it better. Sure, teachers/ school districts can do better, but its never going to drastically improve until parents do a better job at home. It's the culture that needs to change, which is a much harder, and less popular, than just pumping more money into the system. Parents need to actually be involved in their kids school work and push them to succeed.

Agreed 100%. My wife and I easily spend 60-90 minutes per night going over homework and studying with each of our kids 7th, 2nd, 1st grades).

It pays off because the 7th grader was honor roll for the entire year, and the 1st grader is reading well above her level. My 2nd grader though is the real cause of my involvement. He would fall behind terribly if I didn't help him every night on spelling and math. He just struggles.

Anyway, it takes quite a commitment to do homework every night. There are days where I'm exhausted and don't want to do math facts. But I stick with it so my kids can succeed. I recommend every parent do the same.

gyldenlove
05-25-2011, 11:08 AM
[QUOTE=gyldenlove;3190259]You also need to stop this nonsense of having tests all the damn time, and having new classes every semester or every year. Here is how a 14 week class in university goes down: 2 first weeks are spent refreshing things the students should already know if they have taken the prerequisite classes, 4 weeks are spent teaching the actual material, 1 weeks is spent refreshing the first 6 weeks and having the midterm, then 5 weeks of teaching more material and 2 weeks of refreshing the course and preparing for the final exam - of the 14 weeks, only 9 weeks are spent teaching new material out of 14 (64%), the rest of the time is effectively wasted. Cutting down the number of tests but requiring more of homework and in class assignments is much more efficient and allows for longer periods of learning including in depth work that is now completely ignored.

While increased funding would help, especially to schools who have a lot of difficult students, an improved teaching philosophy and curriculum would also help tremendously and that **** is free.[/
QUOTE]
Which teaching philosophy should be used? How is it improved? Where is the free curriculum? what about training teachers on the new philosophy? What good is if the kids don't do it, and the parents couldn't care less?

It may or may not help, but it's NOT free.

Here is the deal, nobody has ever learned anything during an exam and nobody has ever learned anything they shouldn't already know during an exam review. Having people teach stuff that can be answered on a standard multiply choice test is one of the least efficient ways of educating.

The amount of time wasted preparing for and doing useless exams is costing the education system valuable time and resources that could be and should be used for teaching. It is free, teachers use their time educating instead of repeating themselves and teaching useless factoids that may appear on a scantron sheet, the time is already being paid for it is just being wasted.

There is no training required, you convert time used now to review material that is already known into education time, you convert time used for testing into education time, teachers know how to educate and if they don't it is unrelated to implementing a new curriculum anyway. Here is what you do, you take out testing in all grades except 9th and 11th and 12th, with only limited testing in 9th and 11th.

Wether or not the kids participate and wether or not the parents give two hoots is not a problem you can address in school, no method of teaching will ever change that so that is a moot point.

BroncoLifer
05-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Here is the deal, nobody has ever learned anything during an exam....

Once, a long time ago, I learned during an exam that preparation is the key to success.

rmsanger
05-25-2011, 11:33 AM
Funneling all the wealth of a country into the pockets of the few is the recipe for disaster.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Exactly... tax/punish society's most productive individuals. Way to create incentive to work hard and be successful.

I'm all for a slight increase 5% on the top 3-4 tax brackets as well as streamlining of Corp Tax policy in the US. However, with every $ increased from tax we should equally offset entitlement and welfare program spend. It should be an equally weighted balance fix.

alkemical
05-25-2011, 12:47 PM
Those of you who keep arguing about entitlement programs do realize that it's the bottom 10% and top 10% that keep ****ing everyone else over, right?

Rohirrim
05-25-2011, 01:06 PM
Exactly... tax/punish society's most productive individuals. Way to create incentive to work hard and be successful.

I'm all for a slight increase 5% on the top 3-4 tax brackets as well as streamlining of Corp Tax policy in the US. However, with every $ increased from tax we should equally offset entitlement and welfare program spend. It should be an equally weighted balance fix.

Most productive? Like who, hedge fund managers?

cutthemdown
05-25-2011, 03:05 PM
For sure the top 10% can handle a slight tax increase. The smart move is to reduce everything until we are making tons of money again. That means defense also though and neither party especially happy to do that. Liberals guess there democrats want that but they don't. Why because repubs will fight to have the cuts come from dem states, and dems will do the opposite. In the end you will have politicians in both parties who would defect and not vote with there party if it means there state gets some big contract axed and another doesn't.

gobroncos313
05-25-2011, 04:23 PM
tax the rich. done.

Tax the Rich

Words used by someone who does not understand how economics work.

A graduated tax system. One of the key components of the communist manifesto.

Taxing prosperity is not the way we become more prosperous.

Put the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org) in place and control out of control bureaucracies and that's how we get out of debt. Also get the federal govt out of the public school systems and give parents a choice in education for their children. This will help in the future generations so people will not think things are as simple as just taxing the rich to solve everything.

TonyR
05-26-2011, 10:00 AM
[Alberto] Alesina has indeed found cases where reducing spending was followed by economic growth and reduced deficits. The problem: he found very few cases. More specifically he found 9 examples out of 107 attempts to reduce spending.
http://www.frumforum.com/gops-new-line-budget-cuts-bring-boom-times


I’ve been pretty aghast to hear claims that large cuts would immediately generate job growth ... when the opposite is almost surely the case. You can make this a lot more complicated, but when you’re as far below capacity as we are—when so many people are unemployed, e.g.—it’s really quite simple arithmetic. Government spending feeds right into GDP growth and cuts subtract from it.

Now, when you’re at full capacity, it’s different.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/cut-and-grow-i-say-no/

Arkie
05-26-2011, 10:39 AM
The key word is "attempts". I guess 107 "attempts" to reduce spending is different than actual reduction of spending. I only know of two years in the last 30 years that congress actually reduced spending.