PDA

View Full Version : I must admit...



Qtec
01-27-2011, 07:15 AM
I watched the rebuttal from Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. for as long as I could. Almost 4 minutes before I got queasy.


Q

pooltchr
01-27-2011, 07:50 AM
I'm sure that hearing the truth sent some serious quivers through your stomach.

Steve

Qtec
01-27-2011, 07:56 AM
Steve, his pathetic speech has been panned by all and sundry.

He wants the 95% to pay for Wall St, while Wall St is handing out record bonus's.
Q

Sev
01-27-2011, 08:19 AM
Sure he does.

pooltchr
01-27-2011, 08:51 AM
Maybe if we actually had 95% paying taxes, we wouldn't be quite as deep in debt as we are. As it is, slightly over 50% actually pay federal income tax. And when we have half that don't pay taxes, the welfare state will have officially taken over.

Steve

Gayle in MD
01-27-2011, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I watched the rebuttal from Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. for as long as I could. Almost 4 minutes before I got queasy.


Q </div></div>

I watched the whole thing, and can't decide who told the most lies, Ryan or Bachmann.

Hard to imagine that we have enough ignorant people in this country to elect people lik them.

But, as we know, the right doesn't fact check, they just spread the lies around, that they are too lazy to research.

Ryan looks like Dracula, with that hair, lol, all he needs is some fangs, and some blood dripping from the corners of his mouth,, LOL.

SS?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 - unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest.

Social Security supporters are adamant that the program will be repaid, just as the U.S. government repays others who invest in U.S. Treasury bonds.

"It's an IOU that is backed by Treasury bonds and the faith and credit of the United States government," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. "It is the same faith and credit that enables us to borrow from rich people and from China and from other countries. As you well know, in the history of this country, the United States has never defaulted on one penny owed to a creditor."
</div></div>



Repeal Affordable Care Act?
by Ron Pollack


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Before the ink was even dry on the Affordable Care Act, opponents of reform have been working overtime, doing anything and everything they can to repeal health reform -- and the vital consumer protections that are included in the law.

For anti-health care Republicans, "repeal" might make for good political fodder, but for the rest of us, it comes with serious consequences.


In the short term, if Republicans are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act, key protections that are already making a difference for families across the country would be erased.

That would mean children with pre-existing conditions such as asthma or diabetes could once again be denied access to health care; insurers could take away your health coverage over an innocent mistake on an application; and insurers could reinstate annual limits on coverage.

What's more, millions of young adults will no longer be able to stay on their parents' plans, even if after from graduating college they can't find a job that offers benefits.

In the long term, if health reform is repealed, more than 57 million non-elderly Americans who have pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage in the individual market. The recession has underscored just how necessary health reform is as millions of people lost their jobs and their insurance, and then found it difficult to get covered as an individual.


If the law is repealed, seniors will lose their access to no-cost preventive services, help with the cost of prescription drugs and eventual elimination of the doughnut hole.

And consider this: If the law is fully repealed, small businesses would once again be left in the lurch. This means not only could they not pool their buying power in exchanges, they would also lose their eligibility for tax credits that would cover up to 35 percent of the cost of their premiums. Employees who work for small businesses would be on their own.

And the list goes on.

On top of the staggering human cost, repeal of the Affordable Care Act carries a massive financial burden to American taxpayers.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to the newly elected Speaker of the House John Boehner explaining that HR 2 -- the resolution set out by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act -- will actually increase the deficit.

According to the CBO, repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years, and by about $1 trillion more in the decade thereafter.

That's all very inconvenient for ideologues who are trying to force through an anti-health care agenda, while at the same time trying to brand themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

So that leaves Republicans with two options -- debate the Affordable Care Act on its merits or attack the referees. And what they've decided is to attack the CBO and cry foul because the refs didn't rule their way.

And understanding what the law does makes a tremendous difference in the way people feel about it. When all the benefits of the Affordable Care Act are considered, only 26 percent of those polled want it repealed (AP / GfK poll, Jan. 5-10), and even as few as 18 percent (ABC / Washington Post poll, Jan. 13-16).


Sponsored Links
There is no mandate for repeal. Americans welcome this reform and will greatly benefit from it.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act would bring us back to a time when a child could be denied coverage because he or she was born with asthma. A cancer patient could be told "you've reached your limit; we can no longer cover you." And insurance companies could get away with using premiums dollars as profits rather than spending them on actual health care services.

We've made so many strides in making sure that every American has affordable access to health care. Going back to the way things were would not only cost the country a fortune, it would also cost millions of consumers their quality, affordable care.

</div></div>

Republicans are doing what they do best, running up deficits, and blaming everyone else.

Same ol' same ol'. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

pooltchr
01-27-2011, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hard to imagine that we have enough ignorant people in this country to elect people lik them.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Not really. Look who they elected in the last presidential election!

Steve

sack316
01-27-2011, 01:53 PM
[quote=Gayle in MD]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 - unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.
</div></div>

That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack

LWW
01-27-2011, 04:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure he does. </div></div>

The regime said it.

Snoopy believes it.

That settles it.

LWW

Qtec
01-27-2011, 08:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack </div></div>

Interest.

Q

Qtec
01-27-2011, 08:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I watched the whole thing, and can't decide who told the most lies, Ryan or Bachmann. </div></div>

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Two speeches, both more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

Q

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack </div></div>

Interest.

Q </div></div>

interest from what? Does that really work? I can take my bank account into the negative and <u>earn</u> interest off of it?

I mean, I get the gov't will OWE SS the money it borrows from it with interest via the bonds. But the gov't will pay for these bonds out of what? That -1.5T sitting there? Borrow yet again from another program? What, where, and how is the question.

Sack

Qtec
01-28-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack </div></div>

Interest.

Q </div></div>

interest from what? Does that really work? I can take my bank account into the negative and <u>earn</u> interest off of it?

I mean, I get the gov't will OWE SS the money it borrows from it with interest via the bonds. But the gov't will pay for these bonds out of what? That -1.5T sitting there? Borrow yet again from another program? What, where, and how is the question.

Sack </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Tax To Pay For Floods Clean-Up In Australia </span>

Australian taxpayers will be hit with a one-off levy to pay for the massive cost of cleaning up and rebuilding after devastating floods that hit the country in recent months.

Prime minister Julia Gillard said the floods were a national tragedy and may be the most expensive natural disaster ever to hit the country.

She said the cost of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and providing grants to those affected would be as much as 5.6bn Australian dollars (£3.47bn).

The knock-on effect on the economy would see a 0.5% drop in Gross Domestic Product because many coal mines in Queensland will not return to full production for months.

Huge parts of Queensland have been hit by flooding, which has also affected other states including Victoria.

A person earning $100,000 (£62,000) per year will pay just under an extra $5 (£3.10) per week. The levy will apply only in the 2011-12 financial year and it will raise $1.8 billion (£1.12bn).

Australian prime minister Julia Gillard

More than two dozen people died in flash flooding which swept through Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley, before inundating many suburbs of Brisbane.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Ms Gillard said "borrowing was a soft option" she was not prepared to take - so the cost would have to be met by taxpayers.</span>

The lowest earners will be exempt, as will those who have received payments for flood damage.

But those earning between $50,000 (£31,000) and $100,000 (£62,000) will face a 0.5% levy, rising to 1% for those earning more than $100,000.
It means millions of people will pay several hundred dollars a year in a one-off charge.

Ms Gillard defended the tax, saying: "Under this levy, someone who has an income of $60,000 (£37,000) will pay just under $1 (62p) extra per week.

"A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 (£3.10) per week. The levy will apply only in the 2011-12 financial year and it will raise $1.8 billion (£1.12bn)."

The rest of the cost will be met by cuts or delays in government programmes, because the Prime Minister is determined to fulfil an election pledge to return a surplus budget in 2012/13.

The opposition has criticised the levy. </div></div>

Simple.


Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack </div></div>

Interest.

Q </div></div>

interest from what? Does that really work? I can take my bank account into the negative and <u>earn</u> interest off of it?

I mean, I get the gov't will OWE SS the money it borrows from it with interest via the bonds. But the gov't will pay for these bonds out of what? That -1.5T sitting there? Borrow yet again from another program? What, where, and how is the question.

Sack </div></div>

You are holding the bar far too high.

LWW

sack316
01-28-2011, 06:02 AM
so raise taxes... coulda said that was your answer in the first place. And yes "simple".

Or, we could not borrow from it to create programs we can't afford. And if we want to create these programs we should come up with the funds to do so without borrowing from 'ourselves' to do it...Simpler

Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. Does that make any sense? Well... actually I must admit it would IF the money we borrowed from ourselves were invested in something that generated more capital out of it. But given that I haven't seen a gov't funded program do that in my lifetime that I can think of, I'm gonna stick with saying it's kind of an ass-backwards way of doing things.

An accountant for a lawyer I know in town did some similar moving of money. Accountant is still in jail and lawyer was disbarred for 2 years.

Sack

sack316
01-28-2011, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good topic to discuss right there. Repaid with what?

Sack </div></div>

Interest.

Q </div></div>

interest from what? Does that really work? I can take my bank account into the negative and <u>earn</u> interest off of it?

I mean, I get the gov't will OWE SS the money it borrows from it with interest via the bonds. But the gov't will pay for these bonds out of what? That -1.5T sitting there? Borrow yet again from another program? What, where, and how is the question.

Sack </div></div>

You are holding the bar far too high.

LWW </div></div>

It would appear so.

Sack

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. </div></div>

No you are not. All the govt is doing is paying back a loan.


Nobody on the Right ever complained when Republicans continually borrowed from the SS to finance tax breaks for the highest earners!
Now you say its too expensive to pay it back!!!

When you go to war, you raise taxes to pay for it. Bush never did that, instead he borrowed even more money, gave two rounds of tax cuts and gave a third of it to the elite.

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. </div></div>

No you are not. All the govt is doing is paying back a loan.

Q</div></div>

Where do they get the money with which to pay it back?

You are, again, close to an epiphany Snoopy ... all you have to do is try.

<u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>YES YOU CAN</span></u> figure this out, if you want to that is.

LWW

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do they get the money with which to pay it back? </div></div>

Raise taxes. That's one way but the creditors don't care where it comes from.


If you owe the bank money, all they care about is getting paid. They don't care where you get it from so why should the SS fund be any different?

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do they get the money with which to pay it back? </div></div>

Raise taxes. That's one way but the creditors don't care where it comes from.


If you owe the bank money, all they care about is getting paid. They don't care where you get it from so why should the SS fund be any different?

Q </div></div>

So ... they owe the public the money and they take it from the public to repay the public.

That is analogous to robbing the bank branch to pay the car payment.

Completely unacceptable to the people owed in both cases.

Keep trying ... you are getting closer.

Here's a hint ... SS is running a deficit right now, and the feds haven't raised taxes to repay it.

So, how are they covering this obligation?

You are so, so, so close to "GETTING IT" on this topic.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-28-2011, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. </div></div>

No you are not. All the govt is doing is paying back a loan.


Nobody on the Right ever complained when Republicans continually borrowed from the SS to finance tax breaks for the highest earners!
Now you say its too expensive to pay it back!!!

When you go to war, you raise taxes to pay for it. Bush never did that, instead he borrowed even more money, gave two rounds of tax cuts and gave a third of it to the elite.

Q

</div></div>

Yes, and Bush was the beginning of all of our problems. In fact, the latest from the investigation on the Crash, makes it very clear that they COULD have prevented it, and that what they did do, letting L. Brothers, fail, insured the crash.

Bush, Greenspan, and Paulson, along with the Wall Street greedy, crooked CEO's get the bulk of the blame, just as was already proven, by loads of books by economists, and others, all along, on this subject.

It was a bi-partisan panel, so they had to put Clinton in there somewhere, like how is it rational, to hold him to account, because the Bush Administration, conflated the program, and allowed the fraud, and didn't do anything to prevent the crash, nor address the bastardization, of what had been a successful, revenue producing program, CRA, for over thrity years, until they were in charge????

The Bush policies, above everything else, destroyed our economy, period. His main policy, was....in the midst of a growing disastrous threat, do nothing! Just pretend everything is great....while the whole economy is toppling. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Just like 9/11, he knew it was coming, did nothing, and let the **** hit the fan.

If we didn't have twenty percent of the population, slurping up the insanity on Fux Noise, defending gross ignorance and insanity of nitwits like Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, The radio Lump, and Bachmann, and defending crooks like Cheney, Rove and Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I the Supreme Court wasn't filled with RW Radical fascists, they wouldn't have won the Congress.

Another thrown election, ala Karl Rove.

Some crooks wiggle out of everything.

G.

pooltchr
01-28-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Yes, and Bush was the beginning of all of our problems.
G.

</div></div>

Does your brain have any gear other than reverse????????????


Steve

Sev
01-28-2011, 10:00 AM
Are you sure it has any gears???

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [quote=sack316]Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody on the Right ever complained when Republicans continually borrowed from the SS to finance tax breaks for the highest earners!
Now you say its too expensive to pay it back!!!</div></div>

Ummm excuse me? I've always thought it dumb as hell and never once on this did I differentiate between republican or democratic actions on this topic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No you are not. All the govt is doing is paying back a loan.</div></div>

Paying back a loan of our money with more of our own money again! (remember "with interest?") Let me see if I can simplify this for you: I need a dollar for something. You're a nice guy and have no problems handing one over, but you expect it back in ten days. "Sure, no problem!" I say to you. But to get <u>your own</u> dollar back, I'm gonna need you to give me a dime each day for those ten days too.

Sack

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ummm excuse me? I've always thought it dumb as hell and never once on this did I differentiate between republican or democratic actions on this topic. </div></div>

Ok.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paying back a loan of our money with more of our own money again! (remember "with interest?") </div></div>

The SS fund has nothing to do with the Fed deficit or the Nat Debt. Its basically a pension/insurance fund that by law HAS to buy Govt bonds with its excess cash. [ Soflasnapper explained this earlier.]
These bonds are low interest but they are 110% guaranteed by the might of the US Govt. Not paying the money back, with interest, is not an option.

Q

Sev
01-28-2011, 07:11 PM
HEH HEH HEH HEH!
Not an option? HA HA HA HA!!!!

sack316
01-28-2011, 07:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The SS fund has nothing to do with the Fed deficit or the Nat Debt.</div></div>

More accurately it's shouldn't and it's not supposed to. It should be a separate thing entirely, you are correct. But in reality, it is not because it is borrowed from (and as you and sofla both said, the surplus portion is actually required to do this). To put it simply, when SS needs to cash in those bonds, the federal government will have to come up with money to honor them (read: national debt).

Now granted, technically what we pay in SS taxes does not pay for national debt. And technically what SS pays out to beneficiaries does not increase national debt. So in that sense, yes one has nothing to do with the other. But that's also a little naive to take that at face value, as what is done in between with the funds certainly has much to do with the other.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These bonds are low interest but they are 110% guaranteed by the might of the US Govt. Not paying the money back, with interest, is not an option.
</div></div>

Which brings us back full circle... the question is how? Which we've established is either:

a) raise taxes-- unpopular, but someone is going to have to do it eventually. Which is the scenario I brought up earlier about paying for money that is already yours with your own money.

b) borrow more from elsewhere-- which is *drumroll* adding to debt (see, it does tie in even if fancy accounting methods say it doesn't!) Of course eventually at some point that will lead us back to option "a" anyway

c) we could always just print more money! hooray!

Sack

LWW
01-29-2011, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where do they get the money with which to pay it back? </div></div>

Raise taxes. That's one way but the creditors don't care where it comes from.


If you owe the bank money, all they care about is getting paid. They don't care where you get it from so why should the SS fund be any different?

Q </div></div>

So ... they owe the public the money and they take it from the public to repay the public.

That is analogous to robbing the bank branch to pay the car payment.

Completely unacceptable to the people owed in both cases.

Keep trying ... you are getting closer.

Here's a hint ... SS is running a deficit right now, and the feds haven't raised taxes to repay it.

So, how are they covering this obligation?

You are so, so, so close to "GETTING IT" on this topic.

LWW </div></div>

Why are you ducking the obvious answer Snoopy?

Does truth really terrify you that much?

LWW

Qtec
01-29-2011, 04:20 AM
Just read this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Claiming that Social Security needs to be cut, or the retirement age raised, so that Social Security needs less funding is like your bank telling you that you need to cut back on food so they won't have to pay you back the money you put into a savings account. </div></div>

This is also good. Listen to the lies that Steve, LWW etc believe. <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic" target="_blank">Daily Show: That's Tariffic
The media attacks the poor and elderly for not paying federal income taxes, but the U.S. government doesn't see a cent of Exxon's $35 billion profit.</a>

read it (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes)

Q

LWW
01-29-2011, 05:09 AM
Hi Ducky.

LWW

sack316
01-29-2011, 03:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just read this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Claiming that Social Security needs to be cut, or the retirement age raised, so that Social Security needs less funding is like your bank telling you that you need to cut back on food so they won't have to pay you back the money you put into a savings account. </div></div>

This is also good. Listen to the lies that Steve, LWW etc believe. <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic" target="_blank">Daily Show: That's Tariffic
The media attacks the poor and elderly for not paying federal income taxes, but the U.S. government doesn't see a cent of Exxon's $35 billion profit.</a>

read it (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes)

Q
</div></div>

I don't think SS needs to be cut and have never said anything like that. If anything, <u>SS taxes</u> may actually need to be raised. I'd be fine with that, actually, as my life expectancy is longer than what it would have been had I been my age when the program was created. What I'm not fine with, would be my <u>income tax</u> needing to be raised to cover the govt's erratic use of SS funds that I already put in there.

Sack

LWW
01-29-2011, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HEH HEH HEH HEH!
Not an option? HA HA HA HA!!!! </div></div>

Really it isn't a viable option since the bonds are structured to be repaid in dollars which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

It's like writing a check that bounces so you write another bad check to cover it.

LWW

sack316
01-29-2011, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HEH HEH HEH HEH!
Not an option? HA HA HA HA!!!! </div></div>

Really it isn't a viable option since the bonds are structured to be repaid in dollars which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

It's like writing a check that bounces so you write another bad check to cover it.

LWW </div></div>

I'm glad someone understands!

Sack

Qtec
01-29-2011, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SANDERS: Massive amounts of misinformation and disinformation. The truth of the matter is, Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years, at which point it could pay out about 80 percent of all benefits.

What does that mean? It means that within 27 years, we have to figure out how we deal with that gap. In my view, what you do is you lift the income cap so that people making more than $250,000 contribute more into the system.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

SANDERS: Right now, you‘re making $1 million—you‘re putting the same into the system as somebody making $106,000. Do it, problem solved, end of discussion.

SCHULTZ: OK. So, their method is misinformation. Their goal is to do what, line the pockets of the big boys on Wall Street?

SANDERS: Absolutely. Look, what the debate is about, Ed, is not really about the finances of Social Security. It‘s an ideological debate. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>You know as well as I do, these guys don‘t like government. They love Wall Street.</span> </div></div>

Problem solved.

Q.......... link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bernie-sanders-lift-income-cap-social-secu)

pooltchr
01-29-2011, 09:21 PM
And because Bernie says it, you believe it?

SURPLUS??????????

LMAO!!

Steve

LWW
01-30-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HEH HEH HEH HEH!
Not an option? HA HA HA HA!!!! </div></div>

Really it isn't a viable option since the bonds are structured to be repaid in dollars which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

It's like writing a check that bounces so you write another bad check to cover it.

LWW </div></div>

I'm glad someone understands!

Sack </div></div>

I came out from under the leftist eyher long ago.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill ... show me an 18 yr old who isn't a leftist and I'll show you someone with no heart, show me a 35 yr old who's still a leftist and I'll show you someone with no brain.

LWW

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 01:59 AM
You were born again and never looked back.

LWW
01-31-2011, 06:48 AM
Amen.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-31-2011, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SANDERS: Massive amounts of misinformation and disinformation. The truth of the matter is, Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years, at which point it could pay out about 80 percent of all benefits.

What does that mean? It means that within 27 years, we have to figure out how we deal with that gap. In my view, what you do is you lift the income cap so that people making more than $250,000 contribute more into the system.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

SANDERS: Right now, you‘re making $1 million—you‘re putting the same into the system as somebody making $106,000. Do it, problem solved, end of discussion.

SCHULTZ: OK. So, their method is misinformation. Their goal is to do what, line the pockets of the big boys on Wall Street?

SANDERS: Absolutely. Look, what the debate is about, Ed, is not really about the finances of Social Security. It‘s an ideological debate. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>You know as well as I do, these guys don‘t like government. They love Wall Street.</span> </div></div>

Problem solved.

Q.......... link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bernie-sanders-lift-income-cap-social-secu) </div></div>

Tap Tap Tap! Sanders always speaks truth.

Not a single credible response to your great post, I see.

Just the usual, change the subject. Launch irrelevant insults.

They deny being righties, while proving they buy every lie told by the right, LMAO!

The Principles, work. No society survives, without a strong Middle Class.

Subsidizing corporations which outsource our jobs, pollute our environment, spread illness, blpck Science, mistreat the poor and the ill, and steal from those investors who are not "Insiders" can produce nothing but more corruption, more societal strife, more violence, and more destruction.

As Naomi Klein proves, in her great documentary, "The Shock Doctrine" Neocon policies, destroy nations.

Exhorbitant wealth growth at the top, always the result of swindling crooks, with the middle and bottom, losing ground, leads to more violence, and results always, in a failed nation.

History has proven that, over and over. The right, doesn't get it!

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, waving a cross."

Everything is in place.....


G.

LWW
01-31-2011, 12:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just the usual, change the subject. Launch irrelevant insults.

They deny being righties, while proving they buy every lie told by the right, LMAO!

G. </div></div>

How would you know when you have them all on <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>"TOTAL IGNORE!"</u></span></span> dearheart?

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-31-2011, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so raise taxes... coulda said that was your answer in the first place. And yes "simple".

Or, we could not borrow from it to create programs we can't afford. And if we want to create these programs we should come up with the funds to do so without borrowing from 'ourselves' to do it...Simpler

Right now we are (planning on) paying ourselves interest out of our own pockets. Does that make any sense? Well... actually I must admit it would IF the money we borrowed from ourselves were invested in something that generated more capital out of it. But given that I haven't seen a gov't funded program do that in my lifetime that I can think of, I'm gonna stick with saying it's kind of an ass-backwards way of doing things.

An accountant for a lawyer I know in town did some similar moving of money. Accountant is still in jail and lawyer was disbarred for 2 years.

Sack </div></div>

LOL! Sack, please don't compare an Accountant you know in town, who obviously broke the law, to the Federal Governmant.

History is full of successes, which required a country moving their money around.

It would seem to me, that when the goal is an honorable one, not hidden, bu backed by countrymen, it usually works out quite well.

G.

pooltchr
01-31-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It would seem to me, that when the goal is an honorable one, not hidden, bu backed by countrymen, it usually works out quite well.

G. </div></div>

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Steve