Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[SAT]

You're aware that about 46% of taxpayers currently are exempt from paying income tax and if you go "back to the Bush Tax Cuts" that number will go DOWN to about 38% right?

Which means you're hunky with adding back all those lower middle class families to the tax roles as well ---- RIGHT? So you're trading the welfare of maybe 200,000 families just to get at those evil millionaires.

I'm not trying to "get at" anybody. We need to pay the bills. I'm good with only letting the higher brackets go back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, though.

And what's the plan? That money gonna go to REDUCE THE DEFICIT? Pay GE to build dishwashers? Pay teachers in California that are suffering from Leftist mismanagement of their state? Bomb three NEW Arab countries? Open a car plant in Finland?

Imagining the End of the Bush Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com

Or are you gonna just drive thru East LA and hand it out to "the needy"???

And another straw man shows up.

 

[SAT]

Medicare costs 3% overhead. Pretty damned efficient.

Beats private insurance, doesn't it?

Who provided the most jobs in the country, Steve Jobs or your next door neighbor?

Our next door neighbors. By far.

You suffer from a delusion that rich people give you jobs.

Demand creates jobs. Not rich people.

Stop worshiping them. It's bad for both of you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Guess you didn't want to pitch your WHOLE well thought out redistribution plans.. I'm bummed..

Are you trying to set up a straw man, or are you just irrational?

Sorry to say that as of 2010 -- Social Security DID start to add to the deficit when FICA went below payments. See the Trust Fund has nothing of value in it (see note below)-- and when there's a deficit -- the Treasury issues NEW debt to cover it.

Read this:

FactCheck Gets It Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit | CEPR Blog

OMG -- take that shit and flush it.. Here's what you need to know from the horse's mouth (or ass --- I'm not sure)..

On January 21, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the GAO, tried to make it clear to everyone that the trust fund contained no real assets. He said:

There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.

If anyone has any remaining doubts about whether or not the trust fund contains real assets, those doubts should be removed by the following statement from the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Read more: The Social Security Trust Fund Myth - CBS MoneyWatch.com

Or from the SSA itself in FINE PRINT in the APPENDIX of a yearly report fantasizing about HOW WONDERFULLY ROSY the Trust Fund was that year...

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession,
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires. [[[flacaltenn -- it happened SOONER than that]]]

The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Let me know if you have any troubles with the big words. THERE IS NOTHING OF VALUE IN THE TRUST FUND.. It was LOOTED over 25 years by Congress and contains only promises to issue FUTURE DEBT to cover shortfalls.

Need a hanky?? You've BEEN ROBBED.

And no -- I'm not gonna debate this. Those are the facts...

 

[SAT]

Please read the link I posted.

 

[SAT]

Social Security is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

It would be good if folks could be more rational and less paranoid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Please read the link I posted.

OK -- I wasted my time doing that..

FactCheck argues that Social Security will contribute to the deficit because it will be drawing on the interest on the bonds that it holds beginning in 2016 and later will begin selling these bonds. This would be like claiming that Peter Peterson, the Wall Street investment banker and vociferous proponent of cutting Social Security, is contributing to the deficit if he sells a billion dollars in government bonds to finance his anti-Social Security agenda.

There are NO marketable or TRANSFERABLE BONDS in the Trust Fund. They are Special Issue IntraGovt Transfer "bonds'. NOT T-Bills or Treasuries.. Congress critters SPENT the excess and issued promises to issue FUTURE DEBT. Which is exactly what the CBO and SSA say in my quotations above. WE ARE PAYING NOW for SS deficits with NEW debt.

You need better sources than that. LIke the SSA or the Congressional Budget Office. What about their statements that

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

What part didn't you get?? I'm off this SS thing now. There are entire threads on this. You came in late.

I'm not putting out "straw dogs" about your Robin Hood tendencies and asking you to enlighten me about all the good you're gonna do with the fresh loot from "the rich". You were flirting with Mikey about how great it would be if only EVERYONE wanted to take some extra cash from Justin Bieber this year -- weren't you?

 

[SAT]

I'm sure you've posted a great deal about social security. People post all kinds of shit. The projections are that it's fully funded till 2037, at that point it will be about to pay about 75% of what it owes, without making any changes, and rational people know that there will be changes.

I'm not putting out "straw dogs" about your Robin Hood tendencies and asking you to enlighten me about all the good you're gonna do with the fresh loot from "the rich". You were flirting with Mikey about how great it would be if only EVERYONE wanted to take some extra cash from Justin Bieber this year -- weren't you?

Yes, you are. You're either delusional, or you're setting up straw men.

 

[MikeK]

Boy are you WRONG there "bikersailor". If a scumbag broke into my house, the LAST thing I'll do is call the cops. I'm well armed, well trained and have no problem defending myself, my family and my property. Same goes for each member of my family. The police would be free to come pick up the bodies of the kidnappers but other than that, I do not require their services.

If you were indeed the kind of badass you might believe yourself to be you would know just how absurd what you've said really is.

Another lefty ad hominem attack with no basis in logic or reason. Shocking!!!

Care to try again, with specifics and using logic and reason? Oh God, don't go there!

I regard the police as a necessary evil, with emphasis on necessary. And I have a realistic idea of what life would be like without well organized, mobile police agencies.

The adolescent notion that you are so well-armed and well-trained that you would have no problem defending yourself and your family without a police presence is sheer onanistic fantasy. You might be able to defend yourself against one or two inept intruders but were it not for the suppressive potential of a rapid police response there would be groups of truly badass marauders who either would be in your house waiting for you when you got home or waiting to jump you when you leave. And they would be well-armed, too, as well as being seasoned by years of experience as cell-block gladiators.

So if you really did have anything going for you in the way of down and dirty violence you would know better than to make such absurdly boastful comments.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure you've posted a great deal about social security. People post all kinds of shit. The projections are that it's fully funded till 2037, at that point it will be about to pay about 75% of what it owes, without making any changes, and rational people know that there will be changes.

I'm not putting out "straw dogs" about your Robin Hood tendencies and asking you to enlighten me about all the good you're gonna do with the fresh loot from "the rich". You were flirting with Mikey about how great it would be if only EVERYONE wanted to take some extra cash from Justin Bieber this year -- weren't you?

Yes, you are. You're either delusional, or you're setting up straw men.

It's broken TODAY -- as of 2010 budget year and costing you TWICE for the same benefit dollar going out. Once when you paid excess FICA and they STOLE IT. And today when the Treasury has to issue NEW debt to cover the shortfall. Ain't no 2037 about it..

As for straw stuff --- I was under the impression that YOU were under the impression that the wealth gap is a HORRIBLE thing and that we MUST Tax the wealthy MORE to save the poor.. You know --- Mikey's whole Socialist shtick.

But now --- I realize you just want that noble honest efficient govt THAT STOLE THE EXCESS FICA to make all those decisions on how to spend the additional loot you want to raise... Good luck with that... THAT's why we're against it. And because what the Green Bay Packers (or any other evil rich) make in salary and compensation is NOT my biggest problem.. And quite possibly -- none of our business....

 

[Lakhota]

Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

Because Tea-Tard Republicans hate Obama so much they're willing to deprive their families of an extra few thousand dollars per year just to defeat him.

 

[oreo]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

O.K.--there are 220 thousand people that make 1 million per year compared to 310 million
Americans. We are currently at 14.7 trillion in red ink--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities due to social security/medicare.

Now looking at the below charts-- can you TAX the rich people explain to me--that even if you could confiscate every dime they make-how it-would even put a scratch into this bill?

1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.

1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.

We need about 78 of the trillion dollar chart--and frankly there isn't enough wealth in this entire country--including your pay-check that is going to pay this tab.

IOW--it's not the tax revenue--"it's the federal government spending"--that's the problem

 

[SAT]

I regard the police as a necessary evil, with emphasis on necessary. And I have a realistic idea of what life would be like without well organized, mobile police agencies.

The adolescent notion that you are so well-armed and well-trained that you would have no problem defending yourself and your family without a police presence is sheer onanistic fantasy. You might be able to defend yourself against one or two inept intruders but were it not for the suppressive potential of a rapid police response there would be groups of truly badass marauders who either would be in your house waiting for you when you got home or waiting to jump you when you leave. And they would be well-armed, too, as well as being seasoned by years of experience as cell-block gladiators.

So if you really did have anything going for you in the way of down and dirty violence you would know better than to make such absurdly boastful comments.

The police could be less militaristic and authoritarian and it would be a very good thing. In fact, looking at the police response to OWS in many places, it's a necessary thing to have the police less authoritarian. It's been good to see veterans and veterans groups stand up to them.

People should, if they are able, have some sort of way to defend their homes. But I agree, it's a cherished fantasy for those on the right that they can defend their homes all on their own, without any police [government] help. As they say: "Wolverines!"

It's broken TODAY -- as of 2010 budget year and costing you TWICE for the same benefit dollar going out. Once when you paid excess FICA and they STOLE IT. And today when the Treasury has to issue NEW debt to cover the shortfall. Ain't no 2037 about it..

It's not broken. It's a fully functional system. We have a temporary payroll tax cut because of the recession. Temporary. SS is a pay-as-you-go system.

As for straw stuff --- I was under the impression that YOU were under the impression that the wealth gap is a HORRIBLE thing and that we MUST Tax the wealthy MORE to save the poor.. You know --- Mikey's whole Socialist shtick.

But now --- I realize you just want that noble honest efficient govt THAT STOLE THE EXCESS FICA to make all those decisions on how to spend the additional loot you want to raise... Good luck with that... THAT's why we're against it. And because what the Green Bay Packers (or any other evil rich) make in salary and compensation is NOT my biggest problem.. And quite possibly -- none of our business....

OK, you're delusional. Yes, I believe in a progressive taxation system. So does the vast majority of the public. So has every President that I've seen-going back to Ike. And none of them seriously thought that progressive taxation was socialism.

The richest one percent are busy pushing public policy to keep themselves up there and you down here. Through the government that they've gotten you to scream about. Think about that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You believe ". . . in proportion to their respective abilities. . ." means a flat tax?

Do you speak English?

Proportion | Define Proportion at Dictionary.com

A flat tax would be a fixed amount regardless of one's respective abilities.

Wrong. A fixed amount was what Smith objected to. Scottish nobles at the time did pay a fixed amount, say 110 pounds per year, same as a small merchant. Smith, in the above advocated a flat tax, each would pay a proportion, say 10% of their earnings.

Words have meanings, even if those meanings don't serve your agenda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cough, cough! I'm sorry, did you just proclaim Medicare and SS to be efficient, cost effective programs?

OH MY GOD....I'm speechless. That is absolutely the dumbest ******* thing I've read. Wow, just wow.

Hey, good luck man, you're going to need it.

Reality doesn't support the agenda of the leftists, so they have decided to fabricate their own reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not trying to "get at" anybody. We need to pay the bills. I'm good with only letting the higher brackets go back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, though.

By "we" you mean "they," by "the" you mean "my."

They need to pay my bills.

The message of the left boils down to "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee" in every case.

Imagining the End of the Bush Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com

And another straw man shows up.

 

[eflatminor]

The adolescent notion that you are so well-armed and well-trained that you would have no problem defending yourself and your family without a police presence is sheer onanistic fantasy.

The adolescent notion that you are protected by the police is a sheer onanistic fantasy. The police do not prevent crime, they respond to it...after the crime has taken place. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO duty to protect, only to respond. I can look up the case if necessary.

And I put about 15,000 rounds down range per year. I've won several firearms related competitions, including a California State Championship in single stack pistol. You are free to cower in the corner waiting for help to arrive. I'm prepared.

 

[eflatminor]

Social Security is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

It would be good if folks could be more rational and less paranoid.

Correct, SS is backed by a government that HAS NO MONEY and is in fact nearly $15 Trillion in debt. The Social Security fund was emptied years ago. The only thing that remains is IOUs from the Federal Reserve. Well I feel better already!

 

[flacaltenn]

I regard the police as a necessary evil, with emphasis on necessary. And I have a realistic idea of what life would be like without well organized, mobile police agencies.

The adolescent notion that you are so well-armed and well-trained that you would have no problem defending yourself and your family without a police presence is sheer onanistic fantasy. You might be able to defend yourself against one or two inept intruders but were it not for the suppressive potential of a rapid police response there would be groups of truly badass marauders who either would be in your house waiting for you when you got home or waiting to jump you when you leave. And they would be well-armed, too, as well as being seasoned by years of experience as cell-block gladiators.

So if you really did have anything going for you in the way of down and dirty violence you would know better than to make such absurdly boastful comments.

The police could be less militaristic and authoritarian and it would be a very good thing. In fact, looking at the police response to OWS in many places, it's a necessary thing to have the police less authoritarian. It's been good to see veterans and veterans groups stand up to them.

People should, if they are able, have some sort of way to defend their homes. But I agree, it's a cherished fantasy for those on the right that they can defend their homes all on their own, without any police [government] help. As they say: "Wolverines!"

It's broken TODAY -- as of 2010 budget year and costing you TWICE for the same benefit dollar going out. Once when you paid excess FICA and they STOLE IT. And today when the Treasury has to issue NEW debt to cover the shortfall. Ain't no 2037 about it..

It's not broken. It's a fully functional system. We have a temporary payroll tax cut because of the recession. Temporary. SS is a pay-as-you-go system.

As for straw stuff --- I was under the impression that YOU were under the impression that the wealth gap is a HORRIBLE thing and that we MUST Tax the wealthy MORE to save the poor.. You know --- Mikey's whole Socialist shtick.

But now --- I realize you just want that noble honest efficient govt THAT STOLE THE EXCESS FICA to make all those decisions on how to spend the additional loot you want to raise... Good luck with that... THAT's why we're against it. And because what the Green Bay Packers (or any other evil rich) make in salary and compensation is NOT my biggest problem.. And quite possibly -- none of our business....

OK, you're delusional. Yes, I believe in a progressive taxation system. So does the vast majority of the public. So has every President that I've seen-going back to Ike. And none of them seriously thought that progressive taxation was socialism.

The richest one percent are busy pushing public policy to keep themselves up there and you down here. Through the government that they've gotten you to scream about. Think about that.

THERE'S that straw dog that you couldn't find -- right there. NOW the example I gave about mugging CEOs has a basis doesn't it? And still no response from you..

Also I need to know how NBA players making $24Mill comp pkgs or Snookie on Jersey Shore is "keeping themselves up there and you down there".. Please explain that to us..

Which policies are Snookie pushing?? That evil *****...
Ahhh what the heck --- just PUNISH THEM ALL.......... Daddy needs a new Solyndra....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough, the wealthy have seen their incomes increase 265 percent while the rest of us only have increased 18 percent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interestingly enough, the wealthy have seen their incomes increase 265 percent while the rest of us only have increased 18 percent.

And you would happily have yours reduced 18 percent for the privilege of reducing theirs by 265% - so deep is your envy and greed.

Envy and greed are the foundational attributes of leftism.