Hamas atrocities expose peril of liberals’ long embrace of Palestinians and Iran

[DBA]

You are kind of making my point... the largest group on Medicaid are- white people, including oldsters who rely on Medicaid to pick up nursing home expenses.

You are just too dumb to talk to. Seriously, get some help.

Are you getting close to admitting this is a racist society of inequality and injustice, or are you just going to engage in some victim-blaming?. I think you are late for your session in at the Rape Crisis Center telling those ladies they shouldn't have dressed like sluts.

Racist because white people make more money? Yeah, ok, there couldn't possibly be any other reason that race. Oh wait, Asians seem to be doing ok. Put on that thinking cap genius.

Nope.
Social Security is Welfare for OLD WHITE PEOPLE
Medicare is welfare for OLD WHITE PEOPLE
Unemployment Insurance is welfare for WORKING AGE WHITE PEOPLE.

We don't call it "welfare", of course, because it would shatter our illusions that we are self-sufficient. We spend 2.5 Trillion a year on "Entitlements" to keep mostly white people out of the poorhouse. We spend maybe half a trillion a year keeping working poor people from sliding deeper into poverty, without giving them a way out. Anything to keep the peasants pacified...

You obviously ignored my post all together. Your didn't like the facts I presented. You can't get out of it. Higher earners put more into SS and get less out of it than lower earners. You already know that African Americans make less on average than whites so using just a touch of deductive reasoning you should be able to put two and two together. Not sure you are capable though.

During my time in the military, I spent a lot of time in the South. Dull, inbred idiots with their Confederate Flags.

Yep, that's us alright. Now get back to your burger flipping and continue to hold your nose up in the air like you are better than those making far more money than you.

 

[JoeB131]

Racist because white people make more money? Yeah, ok, there couldn't possibly be any other reason that race. Oh wait, Asians seem to be doing ok. Put on that thinking cap genius.

White people make more money because we've had 400 years of policies to keep black people under a heel.

Including
Slavery
Jim Crow
Redlining
Lynching
Voter Suppression

Well, you get the idea.

You obviously ignored my post all together. Your didn't like the facts I presented. You can't get out of it. Higher earners put more into SS and get less out of it than lower earners. You already know that African Americans make less on average than whites so using just a touch of deductive reasoning you should be able to put two and two together. Not sure you are capable though.

It doesn't matter who put more in, dummy. The problem is IT IS WELFARE! Frankly, I'd have no problem means testing SS and Medicare, but the reality is, without them, you'd have a lot more poor white people, and a lot more people who might find full-blown socialism more attractive.

Yep, that's us alright. Now get back to your burger flipping and continue to hold your nose up in the air like you are better than those making far more money than you.

Well, when I meet those people, I'll let you know. They don't live in Jesusland, though.

 

[DBA]

It doesn't matter who put more in, dummy. The problem is IT IS WELFARE

It could be considered welfare for some people but not for higher wage earners. My wife and I will not get back nearly what we put in. How could that be considered welfare?

Well, when I meet those people, I'll let you know. They don't live in Jesusland, though.

So you make more money than everyone in this out. Interesting. You are lost.

 

[JoeB131]

It could be considered welfare for some people but not for higher wage earners. My wife and I will not get back nearly what we put in. How could that be considered welfare?

unlikely, and I would be all for means testing it.

Most people will get everything they paid in by the time they reach 72.

 

[ColonelAngus]

 

[DBA]

unlikely, and I would be all for means testing it.

Most people will get everything they paid in by the time they reach 72.

I would have to run the numbers again for average income, but it is possible they break even. This isn’t taking into 35 years worth of interest, however, which would make a huge difference. Also, for higher individual incomes, they most definitely aren’t as likely to get all their money back, unless they live to at least 85. For higher income married couples, it is almost impossible to get it all back with the cap on SS income, so they are, in effect, subsidizing others(again). Just another of a litany of reasons why the “rich need to pay their fair share” mantra accepted by so many poor Democrats is a bunch of boloney. SS will very likely not be welfare in any shape or form for my wife and I.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have to run the numbers again for average income, but it is possible they break even. This isn’t taking into 35 years worth of interest, however, which would make a huge difference.

Except that Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it's a welfare plan. You will get in the same amount no matter what.

The housewife who starts working at 50 after the kids are grown is going to get the same monthly check as her husband who has been working since he was 16.

The immigrant who came here at 45 is going to get the same benefit as the person who was born here.

On the other hand, the poor schlub who dies at 64 ain't getting anything.

Now, how does that compare to "Welfare". Well, the reality is most people on assistance are only going to be on it for a few years. Before that and after that, they are working jobs and paying taxes.

The thing is, I have no problem with Welfare or Entitlements, as long as they aren't being abused, such as the guy who could work but collects a disability. For instance, one of my recent resume clients is on a disability for "Depression", and gets a disability payment and section 8 housing. He only wants to work part time because he will lose his benefits if he works full time. That's messed up, yo! Oh, yeah, and this is a white guy who had a pretty decent work record before he found out how to game the system.

 

[DBA]

Except that Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it's a welfare plan. You will get in the same amount no matter what.

This is simply untrue. Using the SS formula, the amount you get back as a percentage of your average income over the last 35 working years decreases as income rises. Those who make more, get back less of what they put in. A person contributing the max to SS over 35 years is not likely to get their money back and not even close considering potential interest earned. As always, SS could be considered welfare to those who made less. Just another example of how the "rich" pay more than their fair share.

 

[DBA]

unlikely, and I would be all for means testing it.

Most people will get everything they paid in by the time they reach 72.

Who do you think is picking up the tab when those of average income and below live to age 85? I provided an example with real numbers that you likely didn't read. Those contributing the max would need to live to around 90., NOT including interest on their contributions to break even. This doesn't account for married couples who both contributed the max that don't even received twice the benefit due to benefit caps. As I mentioned before, those with more also likely pay tax on a higher percentage of their SS because they have interest income they must claim.

 

[JoeB131]

This is simply untrue. Using the SS formula, the amount you get back as a percentage of your average income over the last 35 working years decreases as income rises. Those who make more, get back less of what they put in. A person contributing the max to SS over 35 years is not likely to get their money back and not even close considering potential interest earned. As always, SS could be considered welfare to those who made less. Just another example of how the "rich" pay more than their fair share.

not really true. Your benefit is calculated based on what you made in your last three years working.

Who do you think is picking up the tab when those of average income and below live to age 85? I provided an example with real numbers that you likely didn't read. Those contributing the max would need to live to around 90., NOT including interest on their contributions to break even. This doesn't account for married couples who both contributed the max that don't even received twice the benefit due to benefit caps. As I mentioned before, those with more also likely pay tax on a higher percentage of their SS because they have interest income they must claim.

Again, given what the rich have done to this country, they should have 100% of their assets confiscated and then be sold off for transplant organs. that would be their fair share.

 

[Edgetho]

not really true. Your benefit is calculated based on what you made in your last three years working.

Another dimocrap, another surgeon's dream. You have two working parts, your mouth nd your asshole. And they're interchangeable.

How Social Security Benefits Are Calculated​

May 24, 2023 — The formula for calculating your PIA is based on the average indexed monthly earnings, or AIME, in your 35 highest-earning years after age 21, ...

 

[JoeB131]

Another dimocrap, another surgeon's dream. You have two working parts, your mouth nd your asshole. And they're interchangeable.

YOu realize that what you linked to kind of makes my point, don't you?

 

[Edgetho]

YOu realize that what you linked to kind of makes my point, don't you?

My bad. I guess 3 years and 35 years really are the same thing

 

[DBA]

not really true. Your benefit is calculated based on what you made in your last three years working.

Wrong...again. In addition to everything I mentioned, if both my wife and I retired today and were of min. age (62), we would get about $700 less per month than if we were single each making the same income due to the family maximum. I guess you can call that the marriage penalty for "rich" folks. Yeah, there is a welfare component for lower income workers, but what may family will receive certainly doesn't qualify.

Again, given what the rich have done to this country, they should have 100% of their assets confiscated and then be sold off for transplant organs. that would be their fair share.

Ah, now to the nitty gritty. Envy is a horrible thing. Anyone making over 400k is "rich" according to Biden and the Democrats. It stands to reason you would think that those in this income range don't pay their fair share because that is what you read from the majority of the mentally pre-pubescent authors that provide you with most of your information. They feed off of people's envious nature and Democrats are ripe for the picking. If you fell into this this category, you would know differently.

 

[JoeB131]

My bad. I guess 3 years and 35 years really are the same thing

The calculations are a lot more complicated than that, but the gist is, if you've only been working 10 years, you will get the same check as someone who worked for 40.

Wrong...again. In addition to everything I mentioned, if both my wife and I retired today and were of min. age (62), we would get about $700 less per month than if we were single each making the same income due to the family maximum. I guess you can call that the marriage penalty for "rich" folks. Yeah, there is a welfare component for lower income workers, but what may family will receive certainly doesn't qualify.

I'm sure you are getting the biggest check in the Trailer Park.

Ah, now to the nitty gritty. Envy is a horrible thing. Anyone making over 400k is "rich" according to Biden and the Democrats. It stands to reason you would think that those in this income range don't pay their fair share because that is what you read from the majority of the mentally pre-pubescent authors that provide you with most of your information. They feed off of people's envious nature and Democrats are ripe for the picking. If you fell into this this category, you would know differently.

Actually, I make pretty decent money, and I'm happy to pay my fair share.

The reality is, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. We had it right before Reagan. a family making 400K paying 70% rate still do pretty well.

 

[DBA]

I'm sure you are getting the biggest check in the Trailer Park.

Yeah, ok.

The reality is, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. We had it right before Reagan. a family making 400K paying 70% rate still do pretty well.

No, 70% over 400k is ridiculous, particularly when you take into account all the other restricitions on the “rich”. You seriously believe it is fair that a family making 400k, brings home 160k after taxes? Clearly it isn’t me that lives in a trailer park, that would be you If you think that is still doing pretty well, especially in a high cost of living area Chicago. I guess you have just adapted to a lower standard of living than what I am used to here in the poor ole’ South.

 

[JoeB131]

No, 70% over 400k is ridiculous, particularly when you take into account all the other restricitions on the “rich”.

Actually, it's what we did before Ronnie Ray-Gun, and it worked just fine. We had enough money to pay for wars, generous social programs, massive infrastructure, and even a robust space program. (As opposed to Trump, where you declare a "space force" steal the Star Trek Logo, and call it a day.)

You seriously believe it is fair that a family making 400k, brings home 160k after taxes?

Works for me.

Clearly it isn’t me that lives in a trailer park, that would be you If you think that is still doing pretty well, especially in a high cost of living area Chicago.

If you can't make ends meet on 160K take-home, then you are doing it wrong.

I guess you have just adapted to a lower standard of living than what I am used to here in the poor ole’ South.

I've been to the South. It's a fucking third world country.

Generation of inbreeding will do that.

 

[DBA]

Works for me.

Yes, because it wouldn’t affect you. Just like a typical liberal, “rules for thee but not for me”.

Why would someone strive to make more money if they can only keep 30% of what they earn just to pay for all the programs that people like you want to provide with other people’s money?

If you can't make ends meet on 160K take-home, then you are doing it wrong.

LOL…If I took home 160k in Chicago area my standard of living would be horrible as compared to my current. You are accustomed to living in and around filth, I am not.

I've been to the South. It's a fucking third world country.

Generation of inbreeding will do that.

Funny, but I was watching a YouTube video of a guy walking around Gaza a few weeks before the terrorists attacks and was thinking how much it resembled some of the areas in big cities in the US. Yeah, you can have that mess.

Of course, I realize all areas in big cities aren’t like that, and yet you don’t realize that all areas of the South aren’t trailer parks. You ignore the plethora of very wealthy golf course, beach and mountain communities, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, because it wouldn’t affect you. Just like a typical liberal, “rules for thee but not for me”.

Why would someone strive to make more money if they can only keep 30% of what they earn just to pay for all the programs that people like you want to provide with other people’s money?

Why do we care. Frankly, if you are that level of greedy, you are probably screwing the people who actually DID the work in the process, so kind of NO SYPMATHY for you that you only keep 30% of what you make.

LOL…If I took home 160k in Chicago area my standard of living would be horrible as compared to my current. You are accustomed to living in and around filth, I am not.

Actually, you could live pretty well in Chicago on 160K. My idiot brother is a sheet metal worker, lives in a four-bedroom house, and while his take-home is pretty good, it's nowhere near 160K.

Funny, but I was watching a YouTube video of a guy walking around Gaza a few weeks before the terrorists attacks and was thinking how much it resembled some of the areas in big cities in the US. Yeah, you can have that mess.

Gaza is the result of 80 years of economic oppression. Then these stupid shit Jews wonder why the Palestinians want to murder them.

Of course, I realize all areas in big cities aren’t like that, and yet you don’t realize that all areas of the South aren’t trailer parks. You ignore the plethora of very wealthy golf course, beach and mountain communities, etc.

But the whole state is still full of inbreds.

My good friend who moved to South Carolina hates it there. The schools are shit, the crime rate is high, and it doesn't help that she's probably the only Asian person in the town.

 

[Dragonlady]

Most Orientals care more about family values than most whites. Orientals have lower rates of divorce and illegitimacy. They have lower rates of crime too.

I was a child during the 1950's. It was a nice time to be a child. Rates of crime, divorce and illegitimacy were low. Rates of church and synagogue attendance were high. What has happened since has been the decline of a once great civilization.

Orientals???? Carpets have family values???? Who knew? Carpets don't get married or divorced, nor do they commit crimes.

If you are talking about citizens of Asian background, being "good citizens" hasn't stopped them from being subjected to racism, hate, or exclusion. Asians make less money than whites, even when equally qualified.

I was a child during the 50's too. People don't make children aware of horrors of adulthood. I knew nothing of racism, crime or violence when I was a child either. I didn't know about spousal violence, rape, or alcoholism either when I was a child, because I saw none of it at home, or at the homes of my friends. I was 30 years old before I ever knew that my best friend's father was a raging alcoholic. I just thought he was a jerk.

Church attendance is irrelevant to morality. The idea that one needs religion to have morality is assinine. Canada has a much lower rate of church attendance than Americans, and yet we have lower crime rates across the board.

The bald fact is that Americans claim to be Christian, but their current greed, selfishness, and white authoritarian tendencies put the lie to such claims. Even more laughable, is the claim that Democrats are not Christians, even though 70% of the Democrats are card carrying Christians.

Republicans spend a whole lot of time telling themselves lies about why the USA is in such decline, but I blame it on Republicans embrace of white Christian nationism. Your Apartheid white nationalist party for the 21st Century.