| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama endorses slavery
On 11/04/2011 9:25 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. Don't you mean worth more than you investment income? I am retired and save. Haven't applied for SS yet myself, I should. My investment income at present consists of profits from my partnership in a well-manager strip shopping center and a residential property. Except for a small block of shares, I am out of the stock market and have been for a long time. I have other income, but here I am simply talking about investment income. Missed a good ride in teh markets in the last few years. But I too admit I have been selling off back into cash. Looking at some south American investments.... Need to find a good learning Spanish DVD set. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... wrote: Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas such as food inspections, and there are many others. Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal Service, right? |
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:26:22 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:50:12 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. I am not sure how you enforce that. It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find some solutions. I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the really rich. They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic stimulus. So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our borders. Another non-responsive answer but if you do want to change the subject, yes I do think we should pull back our imperial adventures around the world. There is a whole lot of room to pull back in a $800 billion defense budget and a $15 billion foreign aid budget without becoming totally isolationist. Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) My response was very responsive. You want to go back to isolationism. That doesn't work. Feel free to try and blame your troubles on Dems. |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:53:00 -0400, A_boaterer wrote:
In article , says... wrote: Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas such as food inspections, and there are many others. Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal Service, right? Both of which work reasonably well. |
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:30:45 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:52:29 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:08:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:17:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. It's not intended as a silver bullet. It's intended to get people who can certainly afford it to pay their fair share. It will go a long way toward helping the budget system, esp. in the long term. You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is about 10% of the whole tax cut. More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference even if you don't want to accept that. You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced". I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery | General | |||
| Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama! | General | |||
| Colin Powell Endorses... | General | |||
| Union endorses Republican... | General | |||
| Communist Party endorses Kerry | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
