| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#182
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:55:24 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:02:20 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:29:53 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:07:56 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:18:31 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill" SS/Medicare is s huge wealth transfer from the young to the old. ... and I am an old guy saying it. It would be real easy for me to say "if you can hold it together for 15 or 20 more years I will be dead and won't give a ****" but I do have a sense of responsibility about my kids. S&P just fired a shot across our bow with a drop in the rating of our sovereign debt. The next step is lowering the ratings on our bonds. Bear in mind, if we only have to pay half of a percent more on the debt, it would gobble up every penny of restoring the Bush tax cuts on the $250k and up folks. ($70 billion a year) Getting control on the debt is a lot more serious than health care, global warming, terrorism or any military threats. It affects the full faith and credit of the US and if that is damaged, we will not be able to address any of those other issues. I know it is unthinkable, but the citizens of the US might have to make some sacrifices to do this. I have been watching the Ken Burns show about WWII again. If we were as selfish then as we are now, we would be speaking Japanese or German. Bob and Plume keep saying we are not in as much of a debt problem now as we were in 1944 but the difference is US citizens owned most of that war debt. Now more than half of it is in countries who really don't care if we fail. Whoooo wealth transfer. Must be Obama the Marxist. I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB. He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14% of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes. It still is not covering the benefits being paid out. Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo. I do Cool. I'm betting you didn't actually do that. You just "think it." How about getting out there at a Tea Party rally with a sign that says PayGo is the way to go. |
|
#183
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#184
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:33:57 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:22:19 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote: That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better, saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above people to make us whole. That is total bull****. If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a third of the problem. You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please cite something. I suppose you don't watch the Sunday talk shows. I suppose I could google something up for you but I get criticized for that too. Sorry no. I suppose there must be someone who once said that's "all we need to do." But, reality is a bit more complicated. If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K, that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just throw people out on the street. That is $70 billion a year. The deficit is $1.5 billion. Do the math. I think you mean $1.5 trillion? $70B is a good start. Do you suppose that's all that can be done? How about the $1T or so we spend on the military? Perhaps we can cut that down a bit.. couple of 100 billion perhaps? |
|
#185
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:38:02 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:53:30 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it. You must be deaf then. Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset. We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds? Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away. "Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits. At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone. THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST. What is so hard to understand about that?" We are already spending 166% of revenue, how is adding to that deficit "trivial"? I note you also cut out this, "Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them? Or means test out those who don't need them? Tell me about it. I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you haven't noticed) And, several people have already said that the "means" test already exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and over? Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100% So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird. Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax. Maybe you've been out of it too long. |
|
#186
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:28:24 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:05:17 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:55:24 -0400, wrote: I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB. He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14% of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes. It still is not covering the benefits being paid out. Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo. I do Cool. I'm betting you didn't actually do that. You just "think it." How about getting out there at a Tea Party rally with a sign that says PayGo is the way to go. You would have better luck at a tea party rally than at any DNC function. Part of pay-go is if you can't pay for it, don't spend it. That would have the US government cutting a trillion and a half in spending. Obviously we can't just do that but these little 30 billion dollar cuts and 70 billion dollar tax increases won't even keep up with the cost of borrowing the money we already spent and we have to keep refinancing. This 0.3% interest rate will not last forever. Actually, you wouldn't. The Republicans who are totally beholden to the TPs wouldn't go for it. Feel free to fantasize about how great it would be if the TPers got their way. |
|
#187
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset. Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work. And I believe debt should be repaid. You're a welsher, but just won't admit it. Dance, dance, dance. Won't turn a con job into a ballet. It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you can't pay out more than you make for very long. Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans, reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending, dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this on the backs of a struggling middle class. The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to buy them from us. That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more than we sell only making the problem worse. Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was.. Other countries have always owned a "good chunk" of our debt. They're buying it because it's valuable. Don't you get that? They're not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. |
|
#188
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset. Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work. And I believe debt should be repaid. You're a welsher, but just won't admit it. Dance, dance, dance. Won't turn a con job into a ballet. It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you can't pay out more than you make for very long. Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans, reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending, dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this on the backs of a struggling middle class. The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to buy them from us. That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more than we sell only making the problem worse. Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was.. Obama is closer. He gave them more financial assistance. |
|
#189
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
You're simply and 'idiot'
wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: Apparently, it is up to the Prez to determine which govt personnel are "essential" to get paid and Clinton paid the military during the '95 shutdown. Obama has decided military are "nonessential" yet they are required to work for possible pay later. Basically, Obama has decided to make them work as slaves without compensation. DOES THIS SURPRISE ANYBODY? Statists, regardless of what they claim, all believe in slavery to the state. For Obama, "L'etat et Moi" It doesn't surprise me that you're a racist idiot. |
|
#190
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote: I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you haven't noticed) And, several people have already said that the "means" test already exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and over? Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100% So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird. Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax. Maybe you've been out of it too long. OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all of their SS? I don't. I haven't even applied yet, and I am eligible for the full amount, which is, what, about $2400 a month? No medicare, either. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery | General | |||
| Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama! | General | |||
| Colin Powell Endorses... | General | |||
| Union endorses Republican... | General | |||
| Communist Party endorses Kerry | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
