|
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
On 09/04/2011 1:05 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote: You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal. The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security and Medicare are in deficit today. The job flight from the country is happening right now. The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today. I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also do not take the theater that seriously. And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed their kids, pay for college, etc., etc. You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something that may or may not happen in 30 years. The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about them, apparently. Debt is an addiction. Your like a heroin addict that thinks fixing it is shooting up. Only a mater of time before it fails and lights out. If you cut now, the remainder might be possible. If you keep the gangrene, well, eventually the whole host dies. |
Obama endorses slavery
On 09/04/2011 4:59 AM, OmDeFlume wrote:
On 4/9/2011 3:05 AM, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. Priceless! Ya, priceless stupidity. Temporary....just proves my theory that debt addiction is real. Comes with denial too. |
Obama endorses slavery
On 09/04/2011 9:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote: You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal. The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security and Medicare are in deficit today. The job flight from the country is happening right now. The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today. I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also do not take the theater that seriously. And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed their kids, pay for college, etc., etc. That has never happened. If these people are living so close to the edge that they will fail of their pay check is held up a few days, it is not a question of if they will fail, only when. What are these military guys going to do when the war is over and the Army gives then an "early out" like happened after Vietnam? You and Harry keep saying the DoD budget is too high but the DoD is a jobs program. Virtually any cut in the budget will cost someone a job. You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something that may or may not happen in 30 years. The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about them, apparently. Since nobody in the government has ever lost a dime's pay in any of the shut downs, no I don't really care. Some come to work, if they really do anything important for a living, some stay home but they all get paid., Which is why it isn't working. Congress needs to just issue a 3 month temporary no-pay layoff. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:04:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 09/04/2011 4:59 AM, OmDeFlume wrote: On 4/9/2011 3:05 AM, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. Priceless! Ya, priceless stupidity. Temporary....just proves my theory that debt addiction is real. Comes with denial too. You certainly are pricelessly stupid. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:30:19 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote: You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal. The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security and Medicare are in deficit today. The job flight from the country is happening right now. The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today. I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also do not take the theater that seriously. And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. You haven't been paying attention. That's a bunch of nonsense. It's not even close to factual. Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed their kids, pay for college, etc., etc. That has never happened. If these people are living so close to the edge that they will fail of their pay check is held up a few days, it is not a question of if they will fail, only when. What are these military guys going to do when the war is over and the Army gives then an "early out" like happened after Vietnam? You're going to claim that if there had been a shutdown of weeks or months that wouldn't have happened? What are you sipping? You and Harry keep saying the DoD budget is too high but the DoD is a jobs program. Virtually any cut in the budget will cost someone a job. So, your solution... throw them out. Good move, esp. in a recession. You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something that may or may not happen in 30 years. The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about them, apparently. Since nobody in the government has ever lost a dime's pay in any of the shut downs, no I don't really care. Some come to work, if they really do anything important for a living, some stay home but they all get paid., Yes, I can see you don't care. |
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. SS isn't a big problem if correctly understood and addressed. But Obama isn't helping at all. Very bad move reducing the SS tax. SS has its own cost/revenue stream for accounting purposes. As the treasuries are redeemed when outflow exceeds inflow, the SS fund will be depleted faster. I've seen it said that when the fund is entirely depleted, SS can still pay 75% of current benefits on SS income alone. But that probably was based on fuller employment than current, and certainly won't hold true at Obama's reduced SS tax rate. Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. Obama's action has knocked years off that. This is no different than the dishonesty of the GWB tax cuts/deficit spending or Reagan's voodoo economics. Where are the adults? A more cynical way of looking at these matters is that politicians know exactly what they are doing. Reagan and GWB figured that the population at large would accept the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer. GWB figured that deep debt would lead to curtailing safety net programs as a means to deal with it. Obama figures that nothing can hurt SS because to hurt it would be fostering rebellion against those who attempt it. If that's true I think they were all correct in their "figuring." The real problem is the 2-party system. Doesn't work any more. Too much time spent with schoolyard feuds, and little common sense. Paul Ryan is a good example of no common sense. Wants to kill Medicare and replace it with vouchers to pay insurance companies for health insurance. Now I ask you. What insurance company wants to insure old people? What's the premium for a 70 year old? $50k a year with a $20k deductable? Man, this guy is in for some hurting when his "plan" gets analyzed. He's a real dope millionaire. I've already heard some economists are saying his plan will add to the deficit too. Written by "The Club for Growth" supposedly. All this whining from Ryan and his millionaire ilk about debt being bad for "the grandchildren", but maybe they don't worry about their grandchildren paying $50k insurance premiums when they become old folks? The nonsense and hypocrisy I see is hilarious. Like I say, where are the adults? |
Obama endorses slavery
On 09/04/2011 12:11 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. SS isn't a big problem if correctly understood and addressed. But Obama isn't helping at all. Very bad move reducing the SS tax. SS has its own cost/revenue stream for accounting purposes. As the treasuries are redeemed when outflow exceeds inflow, the SS fund will be depleted faster. I've seen it said that when the fund is entirely depleted, SS can still pay 75% of current benefits on SS income alone. But that probably was based on fuller employment than current, and certainly won't hold true at Obama's reduced SS tax rate. Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. Obama's action has knocked years off that. This is no different than the dishonesty of the GWB tax cuts/deficit spending or Reagan's voodoo economics. Where are the adults? A more cynical way of looking at these matters is that politicians know exactly what they are doing. Reagan and GWB figured that the population at large would accept the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer. GWB figured that deep debt would lead to curtailing safety net programs as a means to deal with it. Obama figures that nothing can hurt SS because to hurt it would be fostering rebellion against those who attempt it. If that's true I think they were all correct in their "figuring." The real problem is the 2-party system. Doesn't work any more. Too much time spent with schoolyard feuds, and little common sense. Paul Ryan is a good example of no common sense. Wants to kill Medicare and replace it with vouchers to pay insurance companies for health insurance. Now I ask you. What insurance company wants to insure old people? What's the premium for a 70 year old? $50k a year with a $20k deductable? Man, this guy is in for some hurting when his "plan" gets analyzed. He's a real dope millionaire. I've already heard some economists are saying his plan will add to the deficit too. Written by "The Club for Growth" supposedly. All this whining from Ryan and his millionaire ilk about debt being bad for "the grandchildren", but maybe they don't worry about their grandchildren paying $50k insurance premiums when they become old folks? The nonsense and hypocrisy I see is hilarious. Like I say, where are the adults? People should look at CCP (Canada) and SS (USA) as employment tax. It isn't in your name, it isn't in your account and certainly isn't in your control. Government uses this money in money/value loosing investments and has been routinely raiding them for man decades. The result is the funds are just derated to more government debt. From a pension perspective, people better plan on in my name, in my account under my exclusive control. The rest is horse sh!t. People in Canada planning CPP as a life find out the hard way, it is poverty. Best advice I can give younger people is more money in your pocket today is worth more than a 10x BS future promise from government. The whole pension thing is a huge fraud. Now that the debt welshers in DC have to pay, they want to welsh. Screwing their own people for government GREED. Priceless. Just wait until the fat mama saying Obama is going to pay for here gas wakes up and smells the coffee. Governemtn will get around to screwing everybody but the chosen elite. Modern government and taxation has turned out to be modern day slavery. Paul Ryan is common sense, but to be honest he does not have the support of others that are greedy, scared and chicken sh!t to do the right thing. Cowards. Greedy, envious selfish cowards as you know the senators and congress people are getting back room calls on this. Easier to sellout USA than to stand up for what is right. Far too much corruption in DC. Time to write them off as debt welshers. DC, just a parasite. |
Obama endorses slavery
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 09/04/2011 12:11 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. SS isn't a big problem if correctly understood and addressed. But Obama isn't helping at all. Very bad move reducing the SS tax. SS has its own cost/revenue stream for accounting purposes. As the treasuries are redeemed when outflow exceeds inflow, the SS fund will be depleted faster. I've seen it said that when the fund is entirely depleted, SS can still pay 75% of current benefits on SS income alone. But that probably was based on fuller employment than current, and certainly won't hold true at Obama's reduced SS tax rate. Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. Obama's action has knocked years off that. This is no different than the dishonesty of the GWB tax cuts/deficit spending or Reagan's voodoo economics. Where are the adults? A more cynical way of looking at these matters is that politicians know exactly what they are doing. Reagan and GWB figured that the population at large would accept the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer. GWB figured that deep debt would lead to curtailing safety net programs as a means to deal with it. Obama figures that nothing can hurt SS because to hurt it would be fostering rebellion against those who attempt it. If that's true I think they were all correct in their "figuring." The real problem is the 2-party system. Doesn't work any more. Too much time spent with schoolyard feuds, and little common sense. Paul Ryan is a good example of no common sense. Wants to kill Medicare and replace it with vouchers to pay insurance companies for health insurance. Now I ask you. What insurance company wants to insure old people? What's the premium for a 70 year old? $50k a year with a $20k deductable? Man, this guy is in for some hurting when his "plan" gets analyzed. He's a real dope millionaire. I've already heard some economists are saying his plan will add to the deficit too. Written by "The Club for Growth" supposedly. All this whining from Ryan and his millionaire ilk about debt being bad for "the grandchildren", but maybe they don't worry about their grandchildren paying $50k insurance premiums when they become old folks? The nonsense and hypocrisy I see is hilarious. Like I say, where are the adults? People should look at CCP (Canada) and SS (USA) as employment tax. It isn't in your name, it isn't in your account and certainly isn't in your control. Government uses this money in money/value loosing investments and has been routinely raiding them for man decades. The result is the funds are just derated to more government debt. From a pension perspective, people better plan on in my name, in my account under my exclusive control. The rest is horse sh!t. People in Canada planning CPP as a life find out the hard way, it is poverty. Best advice I can give younger people is more money in your pocket today is worth more than a 10x BS future promise from government. The whole pension thing is a huge fraud. Now that the debt welshers in DC have to pay, they want to welsh. Screwing their own people for government GREED. Priceless. Just wait until the fat mama saying Obama is going to pay for here gas wakes up and smells the coffee. Governemtn will get around to screwing everybody but the chosen elite. Modern government and taxation has turned out to be modern day slavery. Paul Ryan is common sense, but to be honest he does not have the support of others that are greedy, scared and chicken sh!t to do the right thing. Cowards. Greedy, envious selfish cowards as you know the senators and congress people are getting back room calls on this. Easier to sellout USA than to stand up for what is right. Far too much corruption in DC. Time to write them off as debt welshers. DC, just a parasite. *********** Our Canada Pension Plan in only meant to supplement your own savings/a company pension plan and the Old Age pension. If you rely on that and your Old Age Pension as your sole means of income after 65... you'll be no better off than those who didn't work a day or pay a penny into any plans because they will receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement to add to their OAP. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. SS isn't a big problem if correctly understood and addressed. But Obama isn't helping at all. Very bad move reducing the SS tax. SS has its own cost/revenue stream for accounting purposes. As the treasuries are redeemed when outflow exceeds inflow, the SS fund will be depleted faster. I've seen it said that when the fund is entirely depleted, SS can still pay 75% of current benefits on SS income alone. But that probably was based on fuller employment than current, and certainly won't hold true at Obama's reduced SS tax rate. Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. Obama's action has knocked years off that. This is no different than the dishonesty of the GWB tax cuts/deficit spending or Reagan's voodoo economics. Where are the adults? A more cynical way of looking at these matters is that politicians know exactly what they are doing. Reagan and GWB figured that the population at large would accept the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer. GWB figured that deep debt would lead to curtailing safety net programs as a means to deal with it. Obama figures that nothing can hurt SS because to hurt it would be fostering rebellion against those who attempt it. If that's true I think they were all correct in their "figuring." The real problem is the 2-party system. Doesn't work any more. Too much time spent with schoolyard feuds, and little common sense. Paul Ryan is a good example of no common sense. Wants to kill Medicare and replace it with vouchers to pay insurance companies for health insurance. Now I ask you. What insurance company wants to insure old people? What's the premium for a 70 year old? $50k a year with a $20k deductable? Man, this guy is in for some hurting when his "plan" gets analyzed. He's a real dope millionaire. I've already heard some economists are saying his plan will add to the deficit too. Written by "The Club for Growth" supposedly. All this whining from Ryan and his millionaire ilk about debt being bad for "the grandchildren", but maybe they don't worry about their grandchildren paying $50k insurance premiums when they become old folks? The nonsense and hypocrisy I see is hilarious. Like I say, where are the adults? I thought reducing the SS tax was a bad idea as well. I think the rationale is that it puts more money in people's hands when they need it, but it's a tepid way of doing it. |
Obama endorses slavery
OmDeFlume wrote:
On 4/9/2011 3:05 AM, wrote: And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. Priceless! That dumb bitch posted that? Amazing! |
Obama endorses slavery
Canuck57 wrote:
On 09/04/2011 9:30 AM, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote: You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal. The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security and Medicare are in deficit today. The job flight from the country is happening right now. The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today. I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also do not take the theater that seriously. And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed their kids, pay for college, etc., etc. That has never happened. If these people are living so close to the edge that they will fail of their pay check is held up a few days, it is not a question of if they will fail, only when. What are these military guys going to do when the war is over and the Army gives then an "early out" like happened after Vietnam? You and Harry keep saying the DoD budget is too high but the DoD is a jobs program. Virtually any cut in the budget will cost someone a job. You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something that may or may not happen in 30 years. The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about them, apparently. Since nobody in the government has ever lost a dime's pay in any of the shut downs, no I don't really care. Some come to work, if they really do anything important for a living, some stay home but they all get paid., Which is why it isn't working. Congress needs to just issue a 3 month temporary no-pay layoff. While that will never happen, it would save a ton of money. Their pensions and health care benefits are also out of control. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 01:56:13 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:32:33 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 23:32:26 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Right now they would have to borrow every penny again from someone else to cash those bonds. How is that not upside down"? Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Only right wing nuts think a crisis that might happen in 30 years has to be fixed in the current hard economic times. We are rapidly coming to the end of that road we have been kicking that can down. I always hear SS was "the most successful program in history" but that was when it was paid for. Now it is in deficit. That is a fact and you can't spin it any other way. The problem is now, not in 30 years. We are just in denial and we are still borrowing money because it is still cheap but that is not going to last long. The interest on the debt is over $200 billion now and we are still paying less than 1% for 2 year treasuries. That could change the next time we have the auction and 3-4% is not a ridiculous projection if our paper just slightly falls out of favor. They already demand that for a 10 year note. According to you. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Facts don't matter. Don't you get it. |
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. |
Obama endorses slavery
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. |
Obama endorses slavery
On 09/04/2011 7:58 PM, L G wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 09/04/2011 9:30 AM, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote: You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal. The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security and Medicare are in deficit today. The job flight from the country is happening right now. The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today. I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also do not take the theater that seriously. And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years. You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later projections were 2012-13. Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a while with no end in sight. Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed their kids, pay for college, etc., etc. That has never happened. If these people are living so close to the edge that they will fail of their pay check is held up a few days, it is not a question of if they will fail, only when. What are these military guys going to do when the war is over and the Army gives then an "early out" like happened after Vietnam? You and Harry keep saying the DoD budget is too high but the DoD is a jobs program. Virtually any cut in the budget will cost someone a job. You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something that may or may not happen in 30 years. The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about them, apparently. Since nobody in the government has ever lost a dime's pay in any of the shut downs, no I don't really care. Some come to work, if they really do anything important for a living, some stay home but they all get paid., Which is why it isn't working. Congress needs to just issue a 3 month temporary no-pay layoff. While that will never happen, it would save a ton of money. Their pensions and health care benefits are also out of control. If congress had common sense, they would just lay off 90% of the government for 3 months and no pay. This way the understand the seriousness. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote: Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other countries. |
Obama endorses slavery
Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. |
Obama endorses slavery
Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 9:27 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. And what do you do with people like me when I move my $$$ out? You don't live in this country, s.f.b. |
Obama endorses slavery
Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, wrote: Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other countries. Where there is a will there is a way. |
Obama endorses slavery
Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 11:29 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. Funny. So funny. Dream on. You are so low IQ it isn't funny. Really? I'd bet my IQ is significantly higher than yours. You write as if you never completed the 8th grade. Plus, you're bat**** crazy *and* a racist. And you think gold is an investment. You are well-matched to Snotty Ingerfool, one of the other morons here. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:18:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 10/04/2011 10:35 AM, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". One good one to remove is mortgage deductibility. I say this as if far more people had far more equity in their homes, so many would not be susceptible to foreclosure and cash flow problems. For example, a home owner who had it paid off doesn't really care much about current prices and is a strictly long haul owner. A 10% down type and it doesn't work out, well, flip the keys to the bank and then while to Obama for another mortgage. Second, make it harder to do bankruptcy. Bet a huge number don't pay because they think they can get away with it. Dope, cars, women -- whatever is more important. It should be against the law to loan money to welshers for 12 year or more. A penalty for being a welsher. Big problem I see in the US right now is in attracting new buyers. With civic and state debt and tax grabs, I might want a taxation guarantee for $100k off the price. Why buy other peoples problems as it isn't just the foundation to worry about? Some countries actually offer this so prices don't collapse. Maybe time states and cities did too. No, you're just stupid. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. I am not sure how you enforce that. It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find some solutions. I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the really rich. They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic stimulus. So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our borders. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:35 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:08:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:17:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. It's not intended as a silver bullet. It's intended to get people who can certainly afford it to pay their fair share. It will go a long way toward helping the budget system, esp. in the long term. You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Apr 11, 1:52*am, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:08:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:17:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out *wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. It's not intended as a silver bullet. It's intended to get people who can certainly afford it to pay their fair share. It will go a long way toward helping the budget system, esp. in the long term. You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. So, you are saying it will eventually be fine and good to tax the middle class into oblivion? Figures. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
On 4/10/2011 8:57 PM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 11:29 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. Funny. So funny. Dream on. You are so low IQ it isn't funny. Really? I'd bet my IQ is significantly higher than yours. You write as if you never completed the 8th grade. Plus, you're bat**** crazy *and* a racist. And you think gold is an investment. Ten points tops. And that's being generous, dreamer boy. What did your education get you? If mom and dad didn't take care of you in their wills, you would have squat now,except for what the benevolent Miss Grear has bestowed upon you. Putting it simply, you are a fraud Harry. |
Obama endorses slavery
In article , says...
On 4/10/2011 8:57 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 11:29 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. Funny. So funny. Dream on. You are so low IQ it isn't funny. Really? I'd bet my IQ is significantly higher than yours. You write as if you never completed the 8th grade. Plus, you're bat**** crazy *and* a racist. And you think gold is an investment. Ten points tops. And that's being generous, dreamer boy. What did your education get you? If mom and dad didn't take care of you in their wills, you would have squat now,except for what the benevolent Miss Grear has bestowed upon you. Putting it simply, you are a fraud Harry. Even with Harrys lack of grades, his daddy bought him a place at some mid west university of no consequence, so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Obama endorses slavery
On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 9:27 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. And what do you do with people like me when I move my $$$ out? You don't live in this country, s.f.b. You got the point! -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Obama endorses slavery
On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. Don't you mean worth more than you investment income? I am retired and save. Haven't applied for SS yet myself, I should. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Obama endorses slavery
Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. Don't you mean worth more than you investment income? I am retired and save. Haven't applied for SS yet myself, I should. My investment income at present consists of profits from my partnership in a well-manager strip shopping center and a residential property. Except for a small block of shares, I am out of the stock market and have been for a long time. I have other income, but here I am simply talking about investment income. |
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. Don't you mean worth more than you investment income? I am retired and save. Haven't applied for SS yet myself, I should. My investment income at present consists of profits from my partnership in a well-manager strip shopping center and a residential property. Except for a small block of shares, I am out of the stock market and have been for a long time. I have other income, but here I am simply talking about investment income. Don, Don, come quick!! You're very quick to point out grammatical errors of others, take a look at Harry's bull**** above!!!! |
Obama endorses slavery
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com