Obama endorses slavery
 

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

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.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...


Medicare is 15-20 % fraud. That is the flaw in having the tax payers
shoveling money at private providers The idea of government providers
will simply not fly here.

Nobody mentioned government providers except you.
Harder keeping you on track than deplume.
Fraud is ended by honest government with the right tools to address it.
If that isn't happening it's because the politicians are bought off by
the private medical industry, who benefit from the fraud.
See who proposes funding for Medicare fraud investigations and who
votes against it.

Until you address the lawyer tax you also are not going to be cutting
medical costs any time soon.

They should do it just to shut you up.
It's mostly a red herring and adds little to the cost.
"Defensive medicine" will still prevail, because it's a professional
means of treatment - and it makes more money for the medical profession.


The other issue is end of life care.
Any effort to limit care to dead people is seen as rationing, another
problem those other countries don't seem to mind. If they are rich
enough they come here for the care they want.

That's the hardest nut to crack. Best that can be done is end-of-life
counseling and hope people are responsible.
If they're not, "death panels" could be real for public money.
If sensible parameters were proposed by the medical community there
wouldn't be much resistance, except from the politically inspired.
And that part of medicine getting rich from it.


Most of those countries are broke too so they are going to be making a
lot of hard decisions about their socialism.


Riiight. I'll wait for them to kill their health care and old age
pension systems.
But I won't hold my breath.


If we don't get a handle on this debt problem you will be worried
about food for your kids. Health care will be a distant dream.


Riiight. Fix debt by replacing Medicare with death vouchers and make it
an impossible dream.
There are plenty of approaches to fixing the debt.


Of course. My opinion is a society should provide health care to all at
an affordable cost, and that old folks should get their SS checks, which
are already low enough for the vast majority to qualify as "poverty"
income.

That was all SS was ever intended to be, a safety net, not a hammock


And that's all it is for most collecting it. I just said that.
The average SS check is about $1150 a month.
Here's a solution for cutting benefits.
Cap benefits at $1400 a month.
For a single that's enough above poverty level so you don't qualify for
unpaid government handouts.
I'll take a good hit.



The WWII generation had the foresight to have lots of kids so there
were plenty of workers to fund their retirement. (roughly 16:1)

Now those kids are coming for theirs and the money is all gone.
There are only 3 workers per boomer today. SS worked because it was
pay as you go and there were plenty of payers.
There are simply not enough payers now.

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.
We've been down this road.
Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.
I'm sick of you whining and not offering solutions.
This is a simple accounting issue to me, tinged with my human instincts.
I offered one solution above on the benefit side that probably fixes it
forever.
Now you put up or shut up.
Let's see what you're made of.
I suspect it's ham only from the right side of the hog.
But I might be surprised.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
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.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.


A. I'm not retired.

B. I have a defined benefit pension plan to which I contributed for decades.

C. Was your FIL disabled? How did he start collected SS at 56?

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

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

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.


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

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

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:20:41 -0700, wrote:

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.

That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday
talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better,
saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above
people to make us whole. That is total bull****.
If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a
third of the problem.

You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please
cite something.

If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K,
that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just
throw people out on the street.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:50:35 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.

I would imagine that they can't dictate how much SS is reduced, since
this is a Federal tax issue. A pension could require someone to start
collecting SS benefits, although I've not heard of it, but that would
not have anything to do with how someone is taxed or not taxed with
respect to their over all income. If you get $100 from your pension
and you get $100 from SS and the limit before you're taxed is $150,
you still get the extra $50, but you're taxed on it.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:34:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

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.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

No more subsidies for big business? I'll sign up for that! Let's
include big oil too please?

Or, we could just deny poor people affordable insurance. You pick.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.
I'm sick of you whining and not offering solutions.
This is a simple accounting issue to me, tinged with my human instincts.
I offered one solution above on the benefit side that probably fixes it
forever.
Now you put up or shut up.
Let's see what you're made of.
I suspect it's ham only from the right side of the hog.
But I might be surprised."

You disappointed me. Thought you could do more than whine and play
Chicken Little.
So ham from the right side of the hog it is.
But really more like all squeal, and no other parts of the hog at all.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:33:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:40 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:23:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:39:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

We would go a long way towards that if we had a tax code that punishes
people who takes jobs offshore and rewards people who create them
here. Unfortunately it works the other way.

Do we see that in the Republican plan? Doubtful.

The republicans are as out of touch as the democrats.
Nobody is willing to tell us this is going to hurt.
In that regard, I have respect for FDR in WWII but he was coming off
of a real depression and we already understood "hurt".

We have 2 or 3 generations of people who have never really had to give
up anything.

So force them to starve... that's your solution? Feel free to find a
politician that isn't a politician.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Medicare is 15-20 % fraud. That is the flaw in having the tax payers
shoveling money at private providers The idea of government providers
will simply not fly here.

Nobody mentioned government providers except you.\

You said providers were making a lot of money. That was the other
option.

Fraud is ended by honest government with the right tools to address it.
If that isn't happening it's because the politicians are bought off by
the private medical industry, who benefit from the fraud.

See above

See who proposes funding for Medicare fraud investigations and who
votes against it.


Until you address the lawyer tax you also are not going to be cutting
medical costs any time soon.

They should do it just to shut you up.
It's mostly a red herring and adds little to the cost.
"Defensive medicine" will still prevail, because it's a professional
means of treatment - and it makes more money for the medical profession.

I keep hearing about what a small percentage of costs go to medical
malpractice judgements but that does not address the costs of
defending suits that never make it to trial because they are too
frivolous or suits that are settled before they make it to trial.

Defensive medicine is real too, no matter what you say.

You said it was the lawyers just a while ago. Now it's that nebulous
defensive medicine... right up until you want something for yourself I
suppose.



The other issue is end of life care.
Any effort to limit care to dead people is seen as rationing, another
problem those other countries don't seem to mind. If they are rich
enough they come here for the care they want.

That's the hardest nut to crack. Best that can be done is end-of-life
counseling and hope people are responsible.
If they're not, "death panels" could be real for public money.
If sensible parameters were proposed by the medical community there
wouldn't be much resistance, except from the politically inspired.
And that part of medicine getting rich from it.

I have no problem with death panels. I have a living will, as do all
of my family members and my deceased parents.

You're just playing the fear card.


Most of those countries are broke too so they are going to be making a
lot of hard decisions about their socialism.


Riiight. I'll wait for them to kill their health care and old age
pension systems.
But I won't hold my breath.

Talk to the Greeks. UK is scaling back it's social services too.

You talk to the Greeks. We're not Greece.


If we don't get a handle on this debt problem you will be worried
about food for your kids. Health care will be a distant dream.


Riiight. Fix debt by replacing Medicare with death vouchers and make it
an impossible dream.
There are plenty of approaches to fixing the debt.

I haven't seen one that makes sense yet. Maybe if you taxed like a
democrat and spent like a tea guy you would get close but you really
need to tax like an FDR democrat.

You've seen plenty but you're unwilling to listen.


Of course. My opinion is a society should provide health care to all at
an affordable cost, and that old folks should get their SS checks, which
are already low enough for the vast majority to qualify as "poverty"
income.

That was all SS was ever intended to be, a safety net, not a hammock


And that's all it is for most collecting it. I just said that.
The average SS check is about $1150 a month.
Here's a solution for cutting benefits.
Cap benefits at $1400 a month.
For a single that's enough above poverty level so you don't qualify for
unpaid government handouts.
I'll take a good hit.

I suspect it will be more like using the current work sheet but
instead of taking that part above $32-44k as regular income at your
tax rate they would just start taking it back in big chunks as your
income rises, up to 100%



The WWII generation had the foresight to have lots of kids so there
were plenty of workers to fund their retirement. (roughly 16:1)

Now those kids are coming for theirs and the money is all gone.
There are only 3 workers per boomer today. SS worked because it was
pay as you go and there were plenty of payers.
There are simply not enough payers now.

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Whatever... same old nonsense over and over.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:29:53 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:07:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:18:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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

SS/Medicare is s huge wealth transfer from the young to the old.
... and I am an old guy saying it.
It would be real easy for me to say "if you can hold it together for
15 or 20 more years I will be dead and won't give a ****" but I do
have a sense of responsibility about my kids.

S&P just fired a shot across our bow with a drop in the rating of our
sovereign debt. The next step is lowering the ratings on our bonds.
Bear in mind, if we only have to pay half of a percent more on the
debt, it would gobble up every penny of restoring the Bush tax cuts on
the $250k and up folks. ($70 billion a year)

Getting control on the debt is a lot more serious than health care,
global warming, terrorism or any military threats. It affects the full
faith and credit of the US and if that is damaged, we will not be able
to address any of those other issues.

I know it is unthinkable, but the citizens of the US might have to
make some sacrifices to do this.
I have been watching the Ken Burns show about WWII again. If we were
as selfish then as we are now, we would be speaking Japanese or
German. Bob and Plume keep saying we are not in as much of a debt
problem now as we were in 1944 but the difference is US citizens owned
most of that war debt. Now more than half of it is in countries who
really don't care if we fail.

Whoooo wealth transfer. Must be Obama the Marxist.

I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a
PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB.
He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality
that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14%
of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes.
It still is not covering the benefits being paid out.

Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:15:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:14:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

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

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.


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

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

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.
There is no money in the SS trust fund, only IOUs from a guy that S&P
just downgraded to "negative". What is it going to take to convince
you folks we are in trouble?

We have a fiscal Pearl Harbor coming and there are still a lot of
people who are going to be shocked.

You still confuse fiction with fact.

You're trying to convince us of something we already believe in. We
don't believe in killing people to solve economic problems.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

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.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

Don't forget over 100 ethenol refineries in the Chicago area where
someone important in Washington has a lot of friends;) snerk

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

Obama endorses slavery
 

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, wrote:

In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
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.
We need to stop turning food into fuel.
What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

Don't forget over 100 ethenol refineries in the Chicago area where
someone important in Washington has a lot of friends;)snerk


Is there any chance the entire kiddie motorbike "racing" season in your
part of the country will be cancelled this year?

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote in message ...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:22:19 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote:



That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday
talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better,
saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above
people to make us whole. That is total bull****.
If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a
third of the problem.

You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please
cite something.

I suppose you don't watch the Sunday talk shows. I suppose I could
google something up for you but I get criticized for that too.

If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K,
that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just
throw people out on the street.

That is $70 billion a year. The deficit is $1.5 billion. Do the math.

REPLY:
Under that scenario, we would be OK. Unfortunately the typo is off by a
factor of 1000 on the deficit.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:41:27 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:33 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:33:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:40 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:23:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:39:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

We would go a long way towards that if we had a tax code that punishes
people who takes jobs offshore and rewards people who create them
here. Unfortunately it works the other way.

Do we see that in the Republican plan? Doubtful.

The republicans are as out of touch as the democrats.
Nobody is willing to tell us this is going to hurt.
In that regard, I have respect for FDR in WWII but he was coming off
of a real depression and we already understood "hurt".

We have 2 or 3 generations of people who have never really had to give
up anything.

So force them to starve... that's your solution? Feel free to find a
politician that isn't a politician.


How do these conversations always degrade to the absurd?

I say they need to raise taxes and cut some programs and you
immediately have us all in bread lines.
This country has the fattest "poor" people on the planet. starving is
not really an issue.

We don't need to raise taxes on the middle and poor. Interesting that
you go after fat people. I guess you don't like them.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:38:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:53:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

We are already spending 166% of revenue, how is adding to that deficit
"trivial"?

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.

I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:52:09 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:01:48 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:07 -0400, wrote:


Talk to the Greeks. UK is scaling back it's social services too.

You talk to the Greeks. We're not Greece.

S&P says all 3 of us have the same debt rating.


You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Whatever... same old nonsense over and over.

Denial does not make the problem go away.

The next step from S&P is to lower the bond rating to AA and that is
what they are threatening. That could easily add $500 billion to our
interest payments. They are pegging the chance of a downgrade at 1 in
3.

I am sure you would never have believed we would get a negative
rating. It is the first time it has happened.

The next step is for S&P to get their credibility mojo back.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:55:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:02:20 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:29:53 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:15:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:07:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:18:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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

SS/Medicare is s huge wealth transfer from the young to the old.
... and I am an old guy saying it.
It would be real easy for me to say "if you can hold it together for
15 or 20 more years I will be dead and won't give a ****" but I do
have a sense of responsibility about my kids.

S&P just fired a shot across our bow with a drop in the rating of our
sovereign debt. The next step is lowering the ratings on our bonds.
Bear in mind, if we only have to pay half of a percent more on the
debt, it would gobble up every penny of restoring the Bush tax cuts on
the $250k and up folks. ($70 billion a year)

Getting control on the debt is a lot more serious than health care,
global warming, terrorism or any military threats. It affects the full
faith and credit of the US and if that is damaged, we will not be able
to address any of those other issues.

I know it is unthinkable, but the citizens of the US might have to
make some sacrifices to do this.
I have been watching the Ken Burns show about WWII again. If we were
as selfish then as we are now, we would be speaking Japanese or
German. Bob and Plume keep saying we are not in as much of a debt
problem now as we were in 1944 but the difference is US citizens owned
most of that war debt. Now more than half of it is in countries who
really don't care if we fail.

Whoooo wealth transfer. Must be Obama the Marxist.

I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a
PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB.
He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality
that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14%
of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes.
It still is not covering the benefits being paid out.

Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo.

I do

Cool. I'm betting you didn't actually do that. You just "think it."
How about getting out there at a Tea Party rally with a sign that says
PayGo is the way to go.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:33:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:22:19 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote:



That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday
talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better,
saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above
people to make us whole. That is total bull****.
If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a
third of the problem.

You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please
cite something.

I suppose you don't watch the Sunday talk shows. I suppose I could
google something up for you but I get criticized for that too.

Sorry no. I suppose there must be someone who once said that's "all we
need to do." But, reality is a bit more complicated.

If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K,
that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just
throw people out on the street.

That is $70 billion a year. The deficit is $1.5 billion. Do the math.

I think you mean $1.5 trillion? $70B is a good start. Do you suppose
that's all that can be done? How about the $1T or so we spend on the
military? Perhaps we can cut that down a bit.. couple of 100 billion
perhaps?

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:38:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:53:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

We are already spending 166% of revenue, how is adding to that deficit
"trivial"?

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.

I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:28:24 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:05:17 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:55:24 -0400, wrote:


I actually got that "wealth transfer from the young to the old" from a
PhD economic professor that I argue with on another BB.
He is about as left as you can get but he does understand the reality
that SS is "pay as you go" and young people are paying old people 14%
of what they earn. That is usually a lot more than their income taxes.
It still is not covering the benefits being paid out.

Tell it to the Republicans who blocked the most recent PayGo.

I do

Cool. I'm betting you didn't actually do that. You just "think it."
How about getting out there at a Tea Party rally with a sign that says
PayGo is the way to go.

You would have better luck at a tea party rally than at any DNC
function. Part of pay-go is if you can't pay for it, don't spend it.

That would have the US government cutting a trillion and a half in
spending. Obviously we can't just do that but these little 30 billion
dollar cuts and 70 billion dollar tax increases won't even keep up
with the cost of borrowing the money we already spent and we have to
keep refinancing. This 0.3% interest rate will not last forever.

Actually, you wouldn't. The Republicans who are totally beholden to
the TPs wouldn't go for it.

Feel free to fantasize about how great it would be if the TPers got
their way.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.


The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The
rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of
the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to
buy them from us.
That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our
debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more
than we sell only making the problem worse.

Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't
beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was..

Other countries have always owned a "good chunk" of our debt. They're
buying it because it's valuable. Don't you get that? They're not going
to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.


The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The
rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of
the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to
buy them from us.
That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our
debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more
than we sell only making the problem worse.

Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't
beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was..

Obama is closer. He gave them more financial assistance.

Obama endorses slavery
 

You're simply and 'idiot'


wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

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

It doesn't surprise me that you're a racist idiot.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

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?

Obama endorses slavery
 

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!

Obama endorses slavery
 

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!

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.

Obama endorses slavery
 

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?

Obama endorses slavery
 

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.