Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Political discussion thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPolitical discussion thread
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8384858687 303>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2009 at 19:18
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

And while were at it, take the damned cap off social security taxes.  If the wealthy are so enamored of a flat tax, there's the place to start.  The argument that I've heard against it is that they won't support social security, turns it into a "welfare" program.  Moronic, they already don't support it. 


Thank you. I was appalled very recently to learn it is capped at $125,000 (I believe).
That can not be right. No one above $125K pays for Social Security?
AngryAngryAngry



And they better be glad I am not President. Not only would I do that it would not be a flat tax...
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 02:51
Don't worry when the government is trying to wring that last drop of revenue out of it's citizens in order to pay for more sh*t we can't afford, I'm sure they'll get rid of that. Come one and all, watch as Obama performs the amazing feat of extracting blood from a dried turnip.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 11:58
That sounds nice and all, but taxes are a necessary evil.
No one LIKES them...but it's the social contract.
You pay taxes, they go to services for the betterment of society as a whole.
Again, I can understand not liking it....but no one can disagree. If so, it is just greed.

On that point. The payment issues aside, how can anyone say healthcare reform is bad?
In fact, most agree something must be done. That being the case, suck it up and pay for it.
That's the problem with this country. I remember being a kid and the street near my house was pretty dangerous, (fairly major road) and parents were irate about having more crossing guards. Then the issue of slight tax raise is mentioned and the parents blast it.

My high school was falling apart in every way, yet the budget wasn't passed for 30 years.

We complain, but then do not want to pay for it.
Health Care and SS are good, almost everyone agrees. So suck it up and if you make $350K a year pay the f*cking 3% payroll tax. They have enough money that...I think they'll live
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:04
I don't mind having a public insurance option, just don't take away my health care plan.  This is what concerns me about the government getting involved.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:08
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

I don't mind having a public insurance option, just don't take away my health care plan.  This is what concerns me about the government getting involved.



And I understand that 100%. But Obama has said that would be the case.
Though I guess no one will actually believe that.
Anytime I've brought up, "Obama has said that" the first response is LOL yea like I believe that.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:21
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:



Thank you. I was appalled very recently to learn it is capped at $125,000 (I believe).
That can not be right. No one above $125K pays for Social Security?
AngryAngryAngry


If it's now $125K, then all the income above that doesn't get taxed at all.  They still get taxed on the first 125.  But all these a-holes that are trying to destroy Social Security saying it's insolvent, etc. conveniently omit that just taking off the cap would solve the problem.Angry


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 14 2009 at 12:26
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:23
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

I don't mind having a public insurance option, just don't take away my health care plan.  This is what concerns me about the government getting involved.



And I understand that 100%. But Obama has said that would be the case.
Though I guess no one will actually believe that.
Anytime I've brought up, "Obama has said that" the first response is LOL yea like I believe that.


Well, it's more that a politician said something, not specifically Obama.  Wink
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:23
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:



Thank you. I was appalled very recently to learn it is capped at $125,000 (I believe).
That can not be right. No one above $125K pays for Social Security?
AngryAngryAngry


If it's now $125K, then all the income above that doesn't get taxed at all.  They still get taxed on the first 125.  But all these a-holes that are trying to destroy Social Security saying it's insolvent, etc. conveniently omit that just taking off the cap would solve the problem.Angry

But keep in mind, facts don't matter with this crowd.  They make their own reality.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 14 2009 at 13:04
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:34
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

that just taking off the cap would solve the problem.Angry



Do you have a source for this?  Preferably something from SSA directly?
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:45
Well Padraic I do understand not believing ANY politician LOL

Side note: The REAL questioning of Sotomayor is going on currently. She does appear to be moderate-liberal. Tough to paint her as an activist but she did firmly say Roe V Wade is here.

Pat Buchanan is pissing me off. After all this... the guy, (and other uber social conservatives like him) are still taking about that latina woman comment and how she is going to rule from the bench based on race and sympathy.
He's also talking about why did Bama "happen" to choose the latina out of the 4 women he had picked for the position and how it's affrimative action. Angry
Women and minorities are under represented in our represenative body. As long as you agree with them, and they are compotent/not corrupt all that the body SHOULD reflect our nation. In the house and senate we can vote though, we can't do that for the Supreme Court so I don't see a problem with it. As long as the judge is qualified and compotent, and of course agree with the President nominating them.


Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:52
I think Sotomaior will end being a bigger disappointment to liberals than conservatives.  Her record is not indicative in any way of a (far) leftist.  As you said, moderate-liberal is probably a good decscription.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:57
This happens no matter what. If it's a liberal judge, conservatives say he will "legislate from the bench." Vice versa.

Interpreting the constitution requires an opinion one way or the other.

How abortion is a matter of "right to privacy" I'll never get though.  So is screwing a giraffe, but that's illegal in 38 states.  Dead
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 12:59
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

I think Sotomaior will end being a bigger disappointment to liberals than conservatives.  Her record is not indicative in any way of a (far) leftist.  As you said, moderate-liberal is probably a good decscription.


I may be fairly leftist, but I have no problem with her. Honestly, the Judiciary kind of scares me. I'm not so opposed to judicial restraint, granted I'm no constructionist.
Yup, she's moderate-liberal and I am fine with that. A nice balance of restraint/activism and of course her statements on Row V Wade, Guns, and other key issues are in line with the Democrats.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 13:01
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

that just taking off the cap would solve the problem.Angry



Do you have a source for this?  Preferably something from SSA directly?

Do I need a source, it's basic mathematics?  If we're in a crisis because of the baby boomers, we need more revenue to take care of the shortfall.  Once you get past that bubble, you could actually reduce the rates for everyone.  Anyone who like me have been paying into this system ever since we've been working for a wage should not sit back and take the notion that all our money is just going to vanish and we won't live to see the benefits ourselves, paltry though they may be.  But if you've invested money in the stock market in hopes of retirement money, where's your money now?


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 14 2009 at 13:41
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 13:10
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

that just taking off the cap would solve the problem.Angry



Do you have a source for this?  Preferably something from SSA directly?

Do I need a source, it's basic mathematics?  If we're in a crisis because of the baby boomers, we need more revenue to take care of the shortfall.


Yes, you need a source.  If the deficits swamp the increased revenue all you do is push off the "break-even" point of SS - when it starts going into the red.  It can be a temporary solution, but not a permanent one.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 13:39
^ How about this?

A statement by economist Paul Krugman

[T]here is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.


Seems to me that a scale back of defense spending, which I would advocate anyway, plus a different tax plan (YES this means a lil more on wealthy). SS should be maintainable.

Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 13:41
Krug is the man.  Big smile

Edited by Slartibartfast - July 14 2009 at 14:02
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

^ How about this?

A statement by economist Paul Krugman

[T]here is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.




0.54% of GDP is about 74b - I'm actually surprised that would make that much of a difference.

Also, as far as taking it into the 22nd century (taken from SSA Trustees Report):

"The projected cost outlook for Social Security and Medicare is somewhat worse than described in last year’s report. In 2008, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs represented about 7.6 percent of GDP. Social Security outgo amounted to 4.4 percent of GDP in 2008 and is projected to increase to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2083. Medicare’s cost was smaller in 2008—3.2 percent of GDP—but is projected to surpass the cost of Social Security in 2028, growing to 11.4 percent of GDP in 2083, when it would be 94 percent larger than Social Security’s cost. In 2083, the combined cost of the programs would represent 17.2 percent of GDP. As a point of comparison, in 2008 total Federal receipts amounted to 17.3 percent of GDP. "

It would seem to me that a modest tax increase would as I surmise alleviate the problem in the short term (even several decades), but not change the overall crisis scenario highlighted above.  But I guess we'll all be dead in 2083, so whatever.  Wink
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 14:04
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

But I guess we'll all be dead in 2083, so whatever.  Wink


I'm guessing I'll probably be dead right there along with you.  Then again, maybe with all these prescriptions they've got me on I'll probably live forever unless I get run over by a steam roller or something, but I won't enjoy it. LOL
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2009 at 14:07
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

But I guess we'll all be dead in 2083, so whatever.  Wink


I'm guessing I'll probably be dead right there along with you.  Then again, maybe with all these prescriptions they've got me on I'll probably live forever unless I get run over by a steam roller or something, but I won't enjoy it. LOL


As much as I'd like to be optimistic, getting to 106 years old doesn't seem like it's going to happen.  LOL
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8384858687 303>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.572 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.