About Us

[email protected]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.

I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.

Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

[email protected]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:01:41 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:51:49 -0700, wrote:

That's not clear that it's done. SS will turn around in the next few
years as employment and the economy improve.

Not with the Obama payroll tax cut. It can never recover from that,
even if we had 2006 employment levels.

Oh come on. That's so nonsensical to not past the sniff test.

OK prove it. Tell us the number of employees that rate would add, the
lesser amount you get with a 14% tax cut, then factor in the extra
boomers who have entered the SS benefit program since 2006 and get
back to me.
The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
If you run the spread sheet, taking at 62 breaks even at age 78 or so
for most people. By waiting until 64, I pushed that out to 84 or so.
Of course that assumes you spend the money. I am investing it. That is
a win-win. I get a better return and if I really need it, I have it.

Reply:
The problem is the spending. We can double the amount of income tax
collected and we are still $100 billion short of a balanced budget. first
thing for Congress should do is kill base line budgeting. Who else in the
real world uses a guaranteed 13% increase each year as balanced? Then when
they say they are cutting a program, they will actually cut the money going
to the program. Now they state they are cutting 5% and the program still
gets an 8% increase in money. The US is in really deep ****, and I do not
really know if we can recover without a really bad recession. 1928 bad.
Bob says we can just print more money. Only as long as we are the world's
"Reserve Currency". Was British Pound Sterling for a long time, until they
devalued the pound. World bank is already talking about using SDR's
(Special Drawing Rights) as the new "Reserve Currency". A conglomeration of
weighted currencies. We have over consumed for years. Look at the trade
deficit for the last 40 years. The credit card is overdrawn and we can not
really declare bankruptcy. What we can do is quickly drop to 2nd or 3rd
world nation in purchasing power. Government is way to big, and consuming
way too much resources. We have about 2 times the amount of Federal
employees as we have manufacturing employees. Service Industry? Who will
be able to pay for the services? Obama is proposing a 4-5-6 Trillion debt
reduction over the next 10-12 years. At the most he will be in charge for 5
years. What is he proposing right now? Reductions? Nope, more excess
waste of money!

Reply: You're an idiot. Why don't you give up your Medicare. That'll
go a long way to solve our fiscal problems.

Harryk

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

Califbill

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.

[email protected]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:06:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

It's not a question of him presenting a "reasonable" plan. If his aim
was to present something worthy of discussion, to "open" the debate,
perhaps he should have presented a reasonable plan.

Also, nobody is claiming that restoring the Clinton-era tax rates
would bring us back to 2000 prosperity. What is being claimed is that
tax breaks for the upper class did NOTHING to help the economy. Those
tax rates would certainly help. A good place to start is to reinstate
the 3 or 4% the upper category.

Percy

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:41:26 -0400, Harryk
sent the following message
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it
in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you
can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and
white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come
from
general revenue.
That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of
that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury
calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue.
How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?

Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."
When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to
what you
paid in, it is welfare.

All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely
speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now
collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting
welfare.
What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away
their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax
85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money
was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't
seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the
facts.

What's really sad is how our tax dollars are wasted, instead of
doing
good for the citizens. We should be slashing the military budget
and
hitting corporations that export jobs with very special taxes, and,
if
they head offshore, levy taxes on the goods and services they want
to
sell here.

Bravo. Trim the pork and protect our jobs. It's so simple; even a
maroon like you gets it.

Harryk

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.
Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.

True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.

Close loopholes for the wealth, raise their taxes, limit their ability
to send $$$ abroad, cut the military budget in half.

L G[_35_]

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:27:40 -0400, L
wrote:

wrote:

Can you show proof that is still true?

Which part?
That the military builds things they don't need to placate
congressmen's districts? See the C-17 program.
That the military builds things they don't need to create a market
for? That is obvious.
I agree we haven't bought a toilet seat for a P-3 recently because
they have all the P-3s they need but I bet we are spending a
ridiculous price for a widget on the F-22.
We have taken a reasonable goal, providing a credible defense for the
country and let it run amok.

When is the last time you saw the bid results on a government contract?

The bid or the final price after all the cost overruns?

Show me where they allow that. The $2000 toilet seat is ancient history.

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:24:26 -0700, wrote:

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

The point is they are chipping away at the promise (we were told SS
would never be taxed), to make SS more solvent but, as you say, the
effect is minimal. I bet there are more promises that will be made
"inoperative" as this problem continues.

SS benefits are not taxed until you reach the threshold. Then you're
taxed. Why is that a problem for you?

There is no "chipping away," unless you mean the Republicans in the
House and Senate.

SS was supposed to always be tax free, at least that was the promise
when I started paying my FICA into it. Now it is taxed. I still bet it
will virtually be confiscated in the future if you have any other
significant source of income. My SS and pension alone is enough to
trip the tax trigger now and I haven't tapped my 401k yet.

Two things are certain to happen if SS is going to survive. The age
will go up and there will be a means test.
I know you deny it but you are in denial about all of these debt
problems.

Thank God for financial planning and not counting on collecting any SS
when I retire. If I do get any SS it will be gravy.

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, A_boaterer wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.

I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

Keeping the boomers armed, manned, maintained and replaced over time is
the problem. When we finally got to see the Soviet fleet at their berths
in their home ports we found out the sad state they were in.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery	HK	General	20	June 19th 09 02:15 PM
Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama!	Boater	General	3	October 25th 08 02:04 AM
Colin Powell Endorses...	Boater	General	12	October 20th 08 02:24 AM
Union endorses Republican...	King Vurtang The Loquacious	General	1	August 22nd 08 12:55 PM
Communist Party endorses Kerry	Michael	ASA	21	July 20th 04 05:52 PM

Menu

About Us