Good GAWD
 

On 10/25/2014 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:49:18 -0500, amdx wrote:

FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count.

Since 1968 FICA is just another income tax, intermingled with the
other revenue in the budget.


That may well be, but the fact is, it is a disability and retire fund.
You pay into it and you get a check sent to you.
It is not like an income tax where you pay in and people that don't
pay in get a welfare check sent to them.

Mikek

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/14 9:44 AM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 8:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 8:56 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Hillary in Boston on Friday:

Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the
minimum
wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created.

She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage
bill
was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to
businesses by
providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years.

Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't*
create
jobs. Really?

If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote
for
Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k


1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage.
2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as
opponents of such raises like to claim.
3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the
Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of
course, it
doesn't.

But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. :)



The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting
for it
along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though
until it
was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the
cost
of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year
later
the whole thing didn't matter anymore).

Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that
corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax
break then?

The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely
upon to
garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch
about
corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill
that
created tax breaks.

More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along
with
the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so
appealing.

We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more?

As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are
verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in
any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a
clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and
once
you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life
comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I
really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are
happy.


Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not
welcome by
some here.


My brother's favorite saying:

"Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire".


Also, "Democrat while in college, because you haven't figured out that
YOU will paying the cost of those things you thought were so great when
they were free."


So, you were a Democrat when you were in college, eh?

I didn't have much political conviction until at 29 I went to buy a
house. It was 1984 and a 30 year mortgage was 16-3/4% interest. (Jimmy
Carter years, but I'm sure it was Bush's fault) The state had a
subsidized mortgage at 9%. Our income was low enough, around $20K that
we easily qualified. However my wife and I were big savers, The first
year we were married, we grossed $18,000 and saved $6,000.
We continued saving like that. Because we tried to help ourselves,
living very frugally, denying ourselves all the consumer goods, we
had a bundle of money earning very high interest. This extra earned
interest income put us over the income to qualify for the loan. So I
didn't get the loan. That's the first time I started helping the
conservatives limit government. The government wasn't going to help me
because I tried to help myself. Clearly that's ****ed up. 30 years later
I'm still ****ed about it.
Mikek


Nice anecdote, but I asked if you were a Democrat when you were in
college. And I'm sorry mortgage rates were at 16-3/4% interest in *1984*
, during the "Jimmy Carter years." Sheesh.

--
This Halloween, I’m dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell.
I’ll give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported
chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll.

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/2014 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:51:03 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 10/25/2014 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:49:18 -0500, amdx wrote:

FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count.

Since 1968 FICA is just another income tax, intermingled with the
other revenue in the budget.


That may well be, but the fact is, it is a disability and retire fund.
You pay into it and you get a check sent to you.
It is not like an income tax where you pay in and people that don't
pay in get a welfare check sent to them.

Mikek

I guess you never heard of SSI but the reality is that FICA has been
"on budget" since 1968 and the government has spent the surplus for
pretty much anything they wanted. Now it is a distinction without a
difference since FICA does not even cover the checks they write.

The idea that there was ever a big bag of money that the government
saved for you in Washington was dashed in 1939 when FDR decided any
extra money was simply a resource the government could use to fund his
upcoming war. That was when the government got the power to spend the
FICA surplus and put an IOU in the box. The "trust fund" is just
another line item on the national debt.



It's also how Bill Clinton was able to (and still does) declare a
"surplus" in the budget late in his term.

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/2014 9:06 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/26/14 9:44 AM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 8:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 8:56 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Hillary in Boston on Friday:

Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the
minimum
wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created.

She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage
bill
was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to
businesses by
providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years.

Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't*
create
jobs. Really?

If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote
for
Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k


1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage.
2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as
opponents of such raises like to claim.
3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at
the
Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of
course, it
doesn't.

But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. :)



The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting
for it
along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though
until it
was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the
cost
of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year
later
the whole thing didn't matter anymore).

Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that
corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax
break then?

The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely
upon to
garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch
about
corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill
that
created tax breaks.

More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along
with
the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so
appealing.

We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more?

As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are
verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in
any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a
clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and
once
you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life
comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I
really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are
happy.


Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not
welcome by
some here.


My brother's favorite saying:

"Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire".


Also, "Democrat while in college, because you haven't figured out
that
YOU will paying the cost of those things you thought were so great when
they were free."


So, you were a Democrat when you were in college, eh?

I didn't have much political conviction until at 29 I went to buy a
house. It was 1984 and a 30 year mortgage was 16-3/4% interest. (Jimmy
Carter years, but I'm sure it was Bush's fault) The state had a
subsidized mortgage at 9%. Our income was low enough, around $20K that
we easily qualified. However my wife and I were big savers, The first
year we were married, we grossed $18,000 and saved $6,000.
We continued saving like that. Because we tried to help ourselves,
living very frugally, denying ourselves all the consumer goods, we
had a bundle of money earning very high interest. This extra earned
interest income put us over the income to qualify for the loan. So I
didn't get the loan. That's the first time I started helping the
conservatives limit government. The government wasn't going to help me
because I tried to help myself. Clearly that's ****ed up. 30 years later
I'm still ****ed about it.
Mikek


Nice anecdote, but I asked if you were a Democrat when you were in
college.

No.

Is that really your question? Say it like you mean it.

And I'm sorry mortgage rates were at 16-3/4% interest in *1984*
during the "Jimmy Carter years." Sheesh.

Just a demonstration of liberal policies.

Mikek

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/14 11:55 AM, amdx wrote:
On 10/26/2014 9:06 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/26/14 9:44 AM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 8:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 8:56 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Hillary in Boston on Friday:

Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the
minimum
wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created.

She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage
bill
was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to
businesses by
providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years.

Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't*
create
jobs. Really?

If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote
for
Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k


1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage.
2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost
jobs, as
opponents of such raises like to claim.
3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at
the
Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of
course, it
doesn't.

But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. :)



The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting
for it
along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though
until it
was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the
cost
of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year
later
the whole thing didn't matter anymore).

Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that
corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax
break then?

The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely
upon to
garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch
about
corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill
that
created tax breaks.

More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along
with
the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently
find so
appealing.

We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more?

As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are
verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to
vote in
any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really
got a
clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and
once
you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life
comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I
really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they
are
happy.


Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not
welcome by
some here.


My brother's favorite saying:

"Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire".


Also, "Democrat while in college, because you haven't figured out
that
YOU will paying the cost of those things you thought were so great
when
they were free."


So, you were a Democrat when you were in college, eh?

I didn't have much political conviction until at 29 I went to buy a
house. It was 1984 and a 30 year mortgage was 16-3/4% interest. (Jimmy
Carter years, but I'm sure it was Bush's fault) The state had a
subsidized mortgage at 9%. Our income was low enough, around $20K that
we easily qualified. However my wife and I were big savers, The first
year we were married, we grossed $18,000 and saved $6,000.
We continued saving like that. Because we tried to help ourselves,
living very frugally, denying ourselves all the consumer goods, we
had a bundle of money earning very high interest. This extra earned
interest income put us over the income to qualify for the loan. So I
didn't get the loan. That's the first time I started helping the
conservatives limit government. The government wasn't going to help me
because I tried to help myself. Clearly that's ****ed up. 30 years later
I'm still ****ed about it.
Mikek


Nice anecdote, but I asked if you were a Democrat when you were in
college.

No.

Is that really your question? Say it like you mean it.

And I'm sorry mortgage rates were at 16-3/4% interest in *1984*
during the "Jimmy Carter years." Sheesh.

Just a demonstration of liberal policies.

Mikek


Especially in 1984 when Ronnie Raygun was finishing up his first term
and Carter had been out of office for about four years.

--
A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST:

Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean
Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding
Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT
Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote.

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/2014 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:51:03 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 10/25/2014 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:49:18 -0500, amdx wrote:

FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count.

Since 1968 FICA is just another income tax, intermingled with the
other revenue in the budget.


That may well be, but the fact is, it is a disability and retire fund.
You pay into it and you get a check sent to you.
It is not like an income tax where you pay in and people that don't
pay in get a welfare check sent to them.

Mikek

I guess you never heard of SSI but the reality is that FICA has been
"on budget" since 1968 and the government has spent the surplus for
pretty much anything they wanted. Now it is a distinction without a
difference since FICA does not even cover the checks they write.


I understand that. It is the line that liberals use about taxes, when
it is said that 47% don't pay income taxes, "Oh, but they pay payroll
taxes" meaning FICA, that is for their disability and retirement
program. It is not an income tax it is a disability and retirement
program.
Ok, nuff said, you look at it your way, I'll look at it my way.
Mikek

Good GAWD
 

On 10/25/2014 4:22 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 4:23 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 10/25/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

A bunch of San Francisco restaurants have instituted a no tipping policy
and are adding a service charge of 20% to the bills. Goes to the
restaurant to distribute. Because of the minimum wage increase in
SF.

Goes to the restaurant to distribute? Seems like it should go to
the restaurant to cover the additional wages they are forced to pay.
Well that's OK, the increased costs from the minimum wage will filter
through with the price of dinners rising.
Was it Foad that doesn't think it works that way?
Mikek

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/2014 7:46 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 4:22 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 4:23 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 10/25/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

A bunch of San Francisco restaurants have instituted a no tipping policy
and are adding a service charge of 20% to the bills. Goes to the
restaurant to distribute. Because of the minimum wage increase in
SF.

Goes to the restaurant to distribute? Seems like it should go to
the restaurant to cover the additional wages they are forced to pay.
Well that's OK, the increased costs from the minimum wage will filter
through with the price of dinners rising.
Was it Foad that doesn't think it works that way?
Mikek



No, he like all the other unions know it's bad but they are selfish and
don't really give a **** about the middle class, young kids, retirees,
women, or anybody else who works and speaks for themselves and doesn't
pay their union dues...

Good GAWD
 

On 10/26/14 8:21 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/26/2014 7:46 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 4:22 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 4:23 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 10/25/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

A bunch of San Francisco restaurants have instituted a no tipping
policy
and are adding a service charge of 20% to the bills. Goes to the
restaurant to distribute. Because of the minimum wage increase in
SF.

Goes to the restaurant to distribute? Seems like it should go to
the restaurant to cover the additional wages they are forced to pay.
Well that's OK, the increased costs from the minimum wage will filter
through with the price of dinners rising.
Was it Foad that doesn't think it works that way?
Mikek



No, he like all the other unions know it's bad but they are selfish and
don't really give a **** about the middle class, young kids, retirees,
women, or anybody else who works and speaks for themselves and doesn't
pay their union dues...


This from a jackoff who doesn't have the skills or work ethic to hold
down a job as a restaurant busboy.

--
A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST:

Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean
Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding
Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT
Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote.

Good GAWD
 

Harry says..

"This from a jackoff who doesn't have the skills or work ethic to hold
down a job as a restaurant busboy. ..."


I agree with this post...