Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

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

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



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


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

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


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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...


up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T


Don't play stupid.
The SS revenue shortfall is a tiny, tiny percentage of the budget.
How many time do I have to tell you that $2T is payback over 26 years,
IF NOTHING HAPPENS TO INCREASE SS REVENUES!
Pretty obvious you view SS as a commie conspiracy to sap our precious
bodily fluids.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.


No, you said you were already being means tested because you paid some
tax on SS benefits.
I already explained SS benefits are income, and subject to the
progressive income tax system.
You cut that out so you could continue with a lame argument.


You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

There you go again - as RR would say.
Claiming you are being means tested, when you're not.
Means testing is actually a difficult solution.
It requires a determination of net worth.
Even the IRS can't do that without adding 100,000 auditors.
They should probably call it income testing, which is how it would work
if they ever do it.
For example, they set the cutoff at $150k income.
Anything over $150k the SS income is taxed at 100%.
As it is now only 85% of SS income is taxed at marginal rates once
income hit $44k. SS income is NOT taxed at all until income hit $32k.

BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
I thought everybody has talked with old folks who tell you that.
You been in a monastery?
Look Greg, this is rec.boats.
Do you actually think there are dummies here?

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?


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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

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

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


We waste more than four times the amount the PRC wastes on military
spending. Our military budget by some estimates approaches $700 billion
a year, while the Chinese spend about $150 billion.

If we cut our military spending in half, we'd still be spending more
than twice what the PRC spends.

What a waste, for both countries.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:40:29 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Sure. Well, I'm not sure when you started paying into it, but in the
last millennium or so it's taxed after you reach the threshold.

There's already a "means" test, since if you make more than a certain
amount, it's taxed. It's possible that the age might have to be raised
and while that might be ok for white-collar workers, it's probably not
a very good thing for blue-collar.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:19:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:43:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:40:29 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Sure. Well, I'm not sure when you started paying into it, but in the
last millennium or so it's taxed after you reach the threshold.

There's already a "means" test, since if you make more than a certain
amount, it's taxed. It's possible that the age might have to be raised
and while that might be ok for white-collar workers, it's probably not
a very good thing for blue-collar.


I made my first FICA payment in 1965. I started working in 1962 but I
didn't make $500 each year so I didn't pay SS.

They started taxing SS benefits in 1983 (thanks Ronnie)

I agree the tax is a means test and I bet it gets bigger as SS starts
running into more trouble.

Raising the age for all retirees is just the consequence of people
living longer. Our current pension/SS model is unsustainable.
I paid into a pension plan for 30 years, If I live to 80, I will
collect longer than I worked. How can that be?

So, you agree then that there's already a means test. Thanks.

We might need to raise the age, but it must be done slowly not
overnight.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:57:28 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:19:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T


Don't play stupid.
The SS revenue shortfall is a tiny, tiny percentage of the budget.
How many time do I have to tell you that $2T is payback over 26 years,
IF NOTHING HAPPENS TO INCREASE SS REVENUES!
Pretty obvious you view SS as a commie conspiracy to sap our precious
bodily fluids.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.


No, you said you were already being means tested because you paid some
tax on SS benefits.
I already explained SS benefits are income, and subject to the
progressive income tax system.
You cut that out so you could continue with a lame argument.

It is not the number that is important, only the direction it is
moving. When Clinton was bragging about a budget surplus, he did it in
the back of a $80 Billion Social Security tax surplus that has been
used to prop up the general budget since 1968. That is gone now, never
to return.

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

You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

There you go again - as RR would say.
Claiming you are being means tested, when you're not.
Means testing is actually a difficult solution.
It requires a determination of net worth.
Even the IRS can't do that without adding 100,000 auditors.
They should probably call it income testing, which is how it would work
if they ever do it.

The government has never looked at net worth when they determine
"means", they only look at income.

Feel free to try and change this. I guess when someone's home drops
50% in value then their SS checks should go up?


For example, they set the cutoff at $150k income.
Anything over $150k the SS income is taxed at 100%.
As it is now only 85% of SS income is taxed at marginal rates once
income hit $44k. SS income is NOT taxed at all until income hit $32k.

That is now, we don't know what will happen in the future but there
will be a push to deny SS to "rich" people.
The current tax is just the first swing at it.

Most "rich" people don't need it. Define rich. I think there is a
large group that could do without.

BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.


You must be young.
It was always taken as fact that SS would never be taxed since you put
in "after tax" money. That was the excuse they gave us about why FICA
was not deductible.

Reagan was the one who screwed seniors on that one. (1983)

Reagan did a lot of other screwing of people in general. Thanks for
acknowledging one of the things.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...


The government has never looked at net worth when they determine
"means", they only look at income.


Not the Feds, but Medicaid commonly looks at "resources" to qualify.
The Feds actually have a lot of non-income wealth info at hand.
They can easily pass that to the states.
A $million in IRA's not distributed is still reported to the IRS.
Income is the easiest way, but not the only way.
I've had to reveal bank account balances when my kids applied for
tuition aid, and they got my SS number too, so maybe they knew more.
None ever got aid.
But an income check would be the easiest for SS "means testing".
Still not a real "means test" when it's just an income tax at marginal
rate.
When they take 100% at some level of income we'll call it a means test.


BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.


You must be young.
It was always taken as fact that SS would never be taxed since you put
in "after tax" money. That was the excuse they gave us about why FICA
was not deductible.

Reagan was the one who screwed seniors on that one. (1983)

"Kid" is relative. 28 years ago I was a kid.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:09:49 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:13 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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

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

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


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

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

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

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

The problem is figuring a way you could make those products and sell
them at a profit. When it is DoD, cost is no object. That is why the
toilet seat on a P-3 Orion costs $800.

what people dont seem to realize is that every dollar we spend above
what we need for defense

is a form of foreign aid.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:09:49 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:13 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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

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

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


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

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

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

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

The problem is figuring a way you could make those products and sell
them at a profit. When it is DoD, cost is no object. That is why the
toilet seat on a P-3 Orion costs $800.

You're off topic. The original thread was from a crazy person about
Obama endorsing slavery.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:14:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:18:28 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:19:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:43:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:40:29 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Sure. Well, I'm not sure when you started paying into it, but in the
last millennium or so it's taxed after you reach the threshold.

There's already a "means" test, since if you make more than a certain
amount, it's taxed. It's possible that the age might have to be raised
and while that might be ok for white-collar workers, it's probably not
a very good thing for blue-collar.


I made my first FICA payment in 1965. I started working in 1962 but I
didn't make $500 each year so I didn't pay SS.

They started taxing SS benefits in 1983 (thanks Ronnie)

I agree the tax is a means test and I bet it gets bigger as SS starts
running into more trouble.

Raising the age for all retirees is just the consequence of people
living longer. Our current pension/SS model is unsustainable.
I paid into a pension plan for 30 years, If I live to 80, I will
collect longer than I worked. How can that be?

So, you agree then that there's already a means test. Thanks.

I said that, it was one of the "boaters" who said it wasn't a means
test. I just believe that will increase until a person who has any
significant income will not actually get any SS.

We might need to raise the age, but it must be done slowly not
overnight.

I agree that is how it will have to get done but they better start
pretty soon. Time is running out pretty fast. We are already on the
down slope of solvency.

It doesn't matter. Your post is off topic. Are you having trouble
staying on topic again??

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:25:04 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:57:28 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:19:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T


Don't play stupid.
The SS revenue shortfall is a tiny, tiny percentage of the budget.
How many time do I have to tell you that $2T is payback over 26 years,
IF NOTHING HAPPENS TO INCREASE SS REVENUES!
Pretty obvious you view SS as a commie conspiracy to sap our precious
bodily fluids.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.


No, you said you were already being means tested because you paid some
tax on SS benefits.
I already explained SS benefits are income, and subject to the
progressive income tax system.
You cut that out so you could continue with a lame argument.

It is not the number that is important, only the direction it is
moving. When Clinton was bragging about a budget surplus, he did it in
the back of a $80 Billion Social Security tax surplus that has been
used to prop up the general budget since 1968. That is gone now, never
to return.

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


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

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


You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

There you go again - as RR would say.
Claiming you are being means tested, when you're not.
Means testing is actually a difficult solution.
It requires a determination of net worth.
Even the IRS can't do that without adding 100,000 auditors.
They should probably call it income testing, which is how it would work
if they ever do it.

The government has never looked at net worth when they determine
"means", they only look at income.

Feel free to try and change this. I guess when someone's home drops
50% in value then their SS checks should go up?

You are arguing with Boater

You're off topic.


For example, they set the cutoff at $150k income.
Anything over $150k the SS income is taxed at 100%.
As it is now only 85% of SS income is taxed at marginal rates once
income hit $44k. SS income is NOT taxed at all until income hit $32k.

That is now, we don't know what will happen in the future but there
will be a push to deny SS to "rich" people.
The current tax is just the first swing at it.

Most "rich" people don't need it. Define rich. I think there is a
large group that could do without.


We agree then

Agree that the rich should pay more, that they should have to either
pay taxes on SS or not receive it, that the right will do anything to
ensure the rich never have to worry? Yes, we agree.



BTW, nobody buys your claim "It was always said that SS would never be
taxed." I knew as a kid it could be taxed, and I also knew if you work
while collecting, your benefits could be drastically reduced while
working. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.


You must be young.
It was always taken as fact that SS would never be taxed since you put
in "after tax" money. That was the excuse they gave us about why FICA
was not deductible.

Reagan was the one who screwed seniors on that one. (1983)

Reagan did a lot of other screwing of people in general. Thanks for
acknowledging one of the things.

He also removed a lot of tax shelters in 1986 too. Did that get you?

He also raised taxes and increased military bloat. He funded
terrorists even though it was against the law, and he cut and ran in
Lebanon.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:48:19 -0400, wrote:

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

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


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

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



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

You said "never." You're making stuff up. You're happy to believe
"projections" that go out dozens of years, but you're unwilling to
look at something that would happen within weeks.

So much for your "fact" based arguments.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:

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

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

Bull****.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?


I guess there are no unions involved in making military hardware and
providing the military goods and services.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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


I guess there are no unions involved in making military hardware and
providing the military goods and services.



Look up the word "transition."

Why waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the military?

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

Harryk wrote:
wrote:

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

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

What happened to all of that bull**** about hiring more people, no cost
health care, etc.....? Now you are a one man operation?

Obama endorses slavery
 

A_boaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote:


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

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

Bull****.

You're right! The chronic liar said he wasn't a union member.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:25:54 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article 29db3de8-e198-4859-bf21-b04c005ad248
, says...

Apparently, it is up to the Prez to determine which govt personnel are
"essential" to get paid and Clinton paid the military during the '95
shutdown. Obama has decided military are "nonessential" yet they are
required to work for possible pay later. Basically, Obama has decided
to make them work as slaves without compensation. DOES THIS SURPRISE
ANYBODY? Statists, regardless of what they claim, all believe in
slavery to the state. For Obama, "L'etat et Moi"

The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:25:54 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article 29db3de8-e198-4859-bf21-b04c005ad248
, says...

Apparently, it is up to the Prez to determine which govt personnel are
"essential" to get paid and Clinton paid the military during the '95
shutdown. Obama has decided military are "nonessential" yet they are
required to work for possible pay later. Basically, Obama has decided
to make them work as slaves without compensation. DOES THIS SURPRISE
ANYBODY? Statists, regardless of what they claim, all believe in
slavery to the state. For Obama, "L'etat et Moi"

The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view. As to "the war" Obama promised to end it, he has not, he has
expanded it in some ways, killing enough civilians to get Pakastan to
tell us to leave, he engineered the Egypt eruption and sparked the
unrest in the Middle East, after killing our own oil resources at home.
What about his promise to keep oil prices low, close Gitmo, be open
about who is visiting the Whitehouse?

Someday when you get by your red herring of "racist", and involve your
brain in the debate, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you are
just a typical, non-empathetic, selfish, self indulgent, progressive
with no need or desire to understand others rights and needs...

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:59:21 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

HAHAHAHAHAAH

As to "the war" Obama promised to end it, he has not, he has
expanded it in some ways, killing enough civilians to get Pakastan to
tell us to leave,

yeah. he's aggressive. doesnt do much for your racist view of him as a
traitor, does it, kluxer?

see...this is where you get yourself in trouble. you're not too
bright. you depend on a steady stream of bull**** from the guys whose
asses you suck...glen and rush

so you spew your racist hatred of obama...that he's not
aggressive...that he's a traitor

THEN when it's shown he IS aggressive, you move the goal posts.

THAT is proof of racism


he engineered the Egypt eruption and sparked the
unrest in the Middle East, after killing our own oil resources at home.

and THAT is ALSO racism

you think arabs are stupid? that they cant fight for their freedom?
you think obama's wrong for NOT wanting us to get in ANOTHER war??

how many freakin' wars do you right wingers want??

What about his promise to keep oil prices low, close Gitmo, be open
about who is visiting the Whitehouse?

gee. let's see. he proposed closing gitmo. and congress's response?
filibuster after filibuster. in fact a RECORD number of filibusters

but at least NOW you're discussing POLICY which you REFUSED to do
before, characterizing the president as 'bin laden'.

you should be ASHAMED of that. THAT is why our country is so
polarized. while i believe bush was a tool of wall street and didnt
give a damn about working people, i NEVER thought he was a TRAITOR

YOU think the president IS a traitor. THAT is racist


Someday when you get by your red herring of "racist", and involve your
brain in the debate, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you are
just a typical, non-empathetic, selfish, self indulgent, progressive
with no need or desire to understand others rights and needs...

yeah. go ahead and pee your pants, hoping that rush will lead you out
of the darkness

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:59:21 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

This is where your argument loses completely.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:31:23 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


The republicans passed a stand alone bill to fund the military, Obama
bin Laden has decided to veto it...

let's see.

bush spent a trillion in iraq and killed 4400 US troops

obama's killed more terrorists in pakistan with drones than bush ever
did

but the right calls obama 'bin laden

THAT is proof of racism

The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough to understand
that other folks can see the same set of facts from a different point of
view.

now let's see. you called the pres of the US 'bin laden'

and then you **** your diapers when someone has the EVIDENCE to
bitchslap your racist ass??

This is where your argument loses completely.


whines the bitchy right winger who called the president of the united
states 'bin laden'.

and has no sense of shame about it.

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote in message ...

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

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


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

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



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


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

Obama endorses slavery
 

I_am_Tosk wrote:


The problem here is you are just not intelligent enough...

Now *that* is rich. Scott Ingersoll, arguably the dumbest poster in
rec.boats, commenting on the intelligence of someone else.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote in message ...

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

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


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

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



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


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

I heard a report the other day about the number of central banks that
are pulling back on their dollar investments and holding more gold.


Reply:
Chicago Commodity Exchange used to require T-bills for payment. Gold is now
also accepted. China is on a buying spree in the world. They are using
T-bills as quick as they can to buy commodity stuff. Repsol in South
America. China now owns. As well as other oil companies in S.A. What are
they using? T-bills or US dollars. They have reduced their holdings from
about 75% to about 60% of our debt. If they can get it to less than 50%
they may accept killing the dollar and most of America's power. Cheaper
than a shooting war.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

wrote in message ...

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

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


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

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



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


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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote in message ...

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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



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


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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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



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


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

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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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

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



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


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

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




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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?


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

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


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

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

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

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