wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

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 ,
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.

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex


We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

My real preference, though, is for a plan that gets rid of for-profit
health insurers. But this isn't a progressive country.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:58:24 -0400, 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 think people should be taxed on the money they make no matter the
source.

If someone makes $250K/yr and receives and is normally supposed to get
$24K/yr in SS (don't know how much SS gets you per year - feel free to
adjust to whatever number you want), you are taxed on it. Is that
really the big issue of our time?

In article ,
says...

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?

NO!

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


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.

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

Well, what did you expect when the administration let the insurance
lobby groups write the frekin' bill. I think they paid about 100 dollars
a page towards Obama's constant re-election bid..

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp


There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

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.

The top of the box for age 66 is $2366 if you paid in the max since
1966. (45 years). I only paid in the max for 30 years (66-96), started
drawing at 63.5 years and my check with single 00 withholding is
$1506, Gross is 1772. At 66 that would have been a bit over $2000 as I
recall. I have a statement around here from 2010 with the real
numbers. I think it was $2400 if you wait to 70.


Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:25:35 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:17:15 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:58:24 -0400, 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 think people should be taxed on the money they make no matter the
source.

If someone makes $250K/yr and receives and is normally supposed to get
$24K/yr in SS (don't know how much SS gets you per year - feel free to
adjust to whatever number you want), you are taxed on it. Is that
really the big issue of our time?


The big issue of our time is cutting government spending and
increasing revenue, whether we will admit it or not.
At a certain point there will be some hard choices made, particularly
in entitlements, since that is the biggest non discretionary spending
outlay. I doubt there will be much discretionary spending going on.

I agree. What I disagree with is starting the hard choices with those
least able to deal with them.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:09:06 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


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.

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

Firstly, there is no such thing as Obamacare. Secondly, the reason the
insurance companies love it is because of two things. The
obstructionism by the right wing and the Democrats' inability to stand
up and be counted.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

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.

The top of the box for age 66 is $2366 if you paid in the max since
1966. (45 years). I only paid in the max for 30 years (66-96), started
drawing at 63.5 years and my check with single 00 withholding is
$1506, Gross is 1772. At 66 that would have been a bit over $2000 as I
recall. I have a statement around here from 2010 with the real
numbers. I think it was $2400 if you wait to 70.


Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

No problems sticking the government with it though, eh?

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp


There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.

It is no different than any large employer offering a benefit plan.