On 21/02/2011 6:59 AM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:

That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.
No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?
You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.
I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.
Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater
wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the
mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and
there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to
be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very
republican of him huh?
BTW your chart does not take that into account.

SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was
stolen, with interest.
Obama can do it. He set the precedent.

How can government stimulate it? Just moving debt from one line to
another, like paying a credit card with another.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 20/02/2011 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote:



Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job?

and how's wall street doing after sucking 10 trillion out of the
economy in the last 3 years? we back at full employment?

Wall Street again? Businesses don't suck money from the economy, blind
man. They conduct business with strict rules in place.

Bob doesn't understand Wall street created that $10 trillion in the
first place, there was no real money to "suck out". We loved the money
while we thought it was real but it wasn't. All that happened was the
ponzi failed, as they all do.

gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse,
primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and
mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason

to the right, this cant happen here. why?
well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it.

we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing
class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN

and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history

hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the
rich are doing in egypt, OK?


What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a
job?

Tag line says it all.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 21/02/2011 9:14 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote:


gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse,
primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and
mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason

to the right, this cant happen here. why?
well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it.

we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing
class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN

and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history

hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the
rich are doing in egypt, OK?


What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a
job

they'll work and get paid

something the american right is opposed to. only the rich get paid.

Maybe you should consider that they do something right that you should
consider doing.

Here is your first step to getting "rich". Get out of debt, you can't
get rich paying other people for money.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 21/02/2011 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote:


gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse,
primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and
mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason

to the right, this cant happen here. why?
well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it.

we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing
class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN

and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history

hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the
rich are doing in egypt, OK?


What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a
job

they'll work and get paid

Work doing what?
There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for
it.

I suppose there may be some money in smuggling arms into Gaza.

With tourism in Egypt in the toilet, guess they can be professional
rioters and looters.

Ya, and then the world will whine when they get caught and shot in Gaza.

But Obama got his way, an unstable middle east and businesses not
investing in American oil development because of BP. Obama be doing a
good job in making all the wrong decisions.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 20/02/2011 9:14 PM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/20/2011 9:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:39:33 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 3:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:55:20 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:23:49 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 4:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 9:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:01 am, need wrote:
In ,
payer3389
@mypacks.net says...



On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown
by what is
happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the
election, they
engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation.
Remember "Card
Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on
unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are
interested
in raw power.
Winning the election was not good enough because they do
not recognize
who won. When that happens, the next step is..................
...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country?
Yes, we know you are trying to clear this group for your 2012
propaganda
run. Remember how each and every Progressive here answered
Tim's call
for civility with a defined, NO, NO, NO!?

Here is your story.
Democrats, being thugs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded


Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women...

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

Here is another advocate of "free speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp

I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd?

http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash-

left-behind/

Oh, did you notice Tim doesn't post here anymore?
The lefties do not recognize elections and routinely attack any
dissent and then blame everyone else. Their own shot Gifford
and they
blamed Palin. Lefties eventually always resort to mass murder as
Obama's best friend Bill Ayers said he wanted when he said he
wanted
to kill 20 million Americans.
The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of
telling
others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too.
I think you should move to Yemen immediately. I'm sure they'd
welcome
your dislike of gov't.
Have more peaceful places to consider. I wouldn't move to a Muslim
country for any reason.
Don't worry, they won't let you in. Either would Panama or Costa Rica
if they find out what you'd be doing/saying about their gov't.
Funny, I have already been told I more than qualify and the bank
already
provided me with the reference I need. Looking at some properties now.
And I didn't say anything bad about Panama or Costa Rica...

When I go out on a boat fishing, I will not think of you. Do have to
bone up on my Spanish though.
Funny... you should leave immediately.
Not for a bit yet. Besides, I already check, I can get Internet down
there to pester you. If we move I will give you a month or two break.
Then rub it in.
Sure. Right. You don't have the basic instinct to do more than sit and
complain.
Heh?

defumer is confused.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 2/21/2011 2:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/02/2011 6:59 AM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:

That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the
idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is
demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.
No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?
You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.
I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.
Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater
wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the
mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and
there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to
be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very
republican of him huh?
BTW your chart does not take that into account.

SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was
stolen, with interest.
Obama can do it. He set the precedent.

How can government stimulate it? Just moving debt from one line to
another, like paying a credit card with another.

That would work for me.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.

Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?


I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more
than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half
and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top.

I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also
understand it won't fix the problem.

They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more
equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long
way toward doing that.


Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"?
You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you
don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked
some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am
having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6
million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and
the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that
means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly
not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4%
tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k
end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said
the median was 500k.

Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?

You're both missing the mark by a mile.
400 people? WTF?
$250k? WTF?
Taxes could be raised on everybody, in progressive fashion, and the debt
would be shortly taken care of.
Even the lowest wage-earners wouldn't miss a percent or two.
The answer to the "business" community that says it will hurt job growth
is "Get the **** out of here. We'll import Indians and Chinese to run
the businesses."
Both of you have been brainwashed by the pols on the tax issue.
Spending is another issue.
SS is simple. Plenty of solutions have been discussed.
Exhorbitant Medicare costs are caused by the socialist Medical/Insurance
industry.
Address those costs and that goes away too.
That's a socialist system for the millionaires and billionaires.
A prime example is the Governor of Florida.
But there's plenty of others.

On 21/02/2011 9:16 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 7:03 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:53:47 -0700,
wrote:

HHAHAHAHA you're the right wing fool! YOU voted for welfare for the
rich. not me, sport

I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush.

architect of the bailout?

henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary

largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009...

Bush's last budget passed in by Congress and an incoming new president.
It is an Obama SPEND.

For example, Bush only gave GM $13 billion after the senate didn't want
to be blamed for it. $13 billion just to keep the GM corruption going
long enough for Obama bailouts.

I liked Bush at one point, but when he was bailing out banks I turned on
him immediately. No way should taxpayers be bailing out banks,
especially with those billion dollar depositors. They should have eaten
the losses. Insure middle class up to $250K and let them sink.

Both turned out to be corrupt.

Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this
kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money
management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big
swings.

and how's govt by wall street working out?

For me? Great. And you?

we growing at 9% PER YEAR?

That is all? I did much better than that.

oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street

Oh, you mean economy. Yep, low debts, solvent government, good economic
policies....yep...China is eating your lunch because their government is
more honest with currency and debt. USA needs to boot Bernke and the
liberalism economists right out of DC.

Bernke and Treasury bozos need to know, no one has ever debt-spent their
way out of a debt problem ever. But they always make it worse.

NY Crude up $5.50 for the day so far and Dated Brent at $106.50 I would
say Obamaflation is coming to a pump near you.
--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:32:47 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.

Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?


I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more
than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half
and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top.

I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also
understand it won't fix the problem.

They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more
equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long
way toward doing that.


Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"?
You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you
don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked
some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am
having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6
million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and
the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that
means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly
not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4%
tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k
end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said
the median was 500k.

Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?

You're both missing the mark by a mile.
400 people? WTF?
$250k? WTF?
Taxes could be raised on everybody, in progressive fashion, and the debt
would be shortly taken care of.
Even the lowest wage-earners wouldn't miss a percent or two.

I agree with everything except the last comment. If someone is at the
lower end of the scale, every penny counts. The middle class could
probably stand it, assuming we get more job growth back. I'd call that
a medium term solution.

The answer to the "business" community that says it will hurt job growth
is "Get the **** out of here. We'll import Indians and Chinese to run
the businesses."
Both of you have been brainwashed by the pols on the tax issue.
Spending is another issue.
SS is simple. Plenty of solutions have been discussed.
Exhorbitant Medicare costs are caused by the socialist Medical/Insurance
industry.
Address those costs and that goes away too.
That's a socialist system for the millionaires and billionaires.
A prime example is the Governor of Florida.
But there's plenty of others.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:41:22 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote:

we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing
class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN

and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history

hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the
rich are doing in egypt, OK?


What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a
job

they'll work and get paid

Work doing what?
There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for

and now that they dont have to pay bribes to the govt to have a job,
the market system can take over.

we havent learned that in the US. here we have crony capitalism where
the middle class has no protection against the raw forces of crony
capitalism